Stacy Clarke...should be fired...

[Skoob]

We would like to believe that promoting officers to protect the public would be an important process and decision considering the responsibilities they will have. She cheated the system for her own biased beliefs.
Demoted? Then reinstated?
No.
She should be fired. Plain and simple.


A high-ranking Toronto police officer apologized at a disciplinary hearing on Wednesday for misconduct that occurred when she provided confidential information to six Black constables ahead of promotional job interviews in 2021.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-superintendent-stacy-clarke-defence-1.7198214

 

[Kautilya]

Regardless of what this police officer did was misconduct or not, why are you so outraged? Is it because she is black and she helped other black officers? You mean she has to be fired, while in the other thread, you are going around supporting a guy guilty of rape ? Nice try Skoob.

That said, given police who assault and shoot civilians usually get away with a slap on the wrist, sharing interview questions is "meh" when compared to all that. Plus the article says she has an exemplary record. So considering all that she should get some form of punishment, but not be fired.

And as the article itself says:

Misconduct must be seen in context: professor
Wendell Adjetey, a McGill University assistant professor who wrote a report examining the context around Clarke's misconduct, testified at the tribunal on Wednesday.

Adjetey highlighted a passage from a 2022 review of the Toronto Police Service done by Deloitte LLP that said the force is "led predominantly by white males, and that this lack of diversity within leadership reinforces the status quo."

"As a scholar, as a historian, I come across examples of again very brave, very smart, very committed Canadians ... who exercise what I would say, their moral consciousness, a moral compass of sorts, once they've pulled all the levers, knocked on all the doors. When nothing changes, there's an element of exasperation that occurs. I think we need to understand that before we jump to conclusions," Adjetey said in an interview.

 

[Skoob]

Regardless of what this police officer did was misconduct or not, why are you so outraged? Is it because she is black and she helped other black officers? You mean she has to be fired, while in the other thread, you are going around supporting a guy guilty of rape ? Nice try Skoob.

That said, given police who assault and shoot civilians usually get away with a slap on the wrist, sharing interview questions is "meh" when compared to all that. Plus the article says she has an exemplary record. So considering all that she should get some form of punishment, but not be fired.

And as the article itself says:

Misconduct must be seen in context: professor
Wendell Adjetey, a McGill University assistant professor who wrote a report examining the context around Clarke's misconduct, testified at the tribunal on Wednesday.

Adjetey highlighted a passage from a 2022 review of the Toronto Police Service done by Deloitte LLP that said the force is "led predominantly by white males, and that this lack of diversity within leadership reinforces the status quo."

"As a scholar, as a historian, I come across examples of again very brave, very smart, very committed Canadians ... who exercise what I would say, their moral consciousness, a moral compass of sorts, once they've pulled all the levers, knocked on all the doors. When nothing changes, there's an element of exasperation that occurs. I think we need to understand that before we jump to conclusions," Adjetey said in an interview.

It's not a black issue. It's a conduct issue. It would ultimately affect public safety if the wrong people are promoted to positions with higher responsibility.
She should be fired.

You don't have to trip over yourself playing the race card here or injecting Trump into a non-Trump related thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

Regardless of what this police officer did was misconduct or not, why are you so outraged? Is it because she is black and she helped other black officers? You mean she has to be fired, while in the other thread, you are going around supporting a guy guilty of rape ? Nice try Skoob.

That said, given police who assault and shoot civilians usually get away with a slap on the wrist, sharing interview questions is "meh" when compared to all that. Plus the article says she has an exemplary record. So considering all that she should get some form of punishment, but not be fired.

And as the article itself says:

Misconduct must be seen in context: professor
Wendell Adjetey, a McGill University assistant professor who wrote a report examining the context around Clarke's misconduct, testified at the tribunal on Wednesday.

Adjetey highlighted a passage from a 2022 review of the Toronto Police Service done by Deloitte LLP that said the force is "led predominantly by white males, and that this lack of diversity within leadership reinforces the status quo."

"As a scholar, as a historian, I come across examples of again very brave, very smart, very committed Canadians ... who exercise what I would say, their moral consciousness, a moral compass of sorts, once they've pulled all the levers, knocked on all the doors. When nothing changes, there's an element of exasperation that occurs. I think we need to understand that before we jump to conclusions," Adjetey said in an interview.

Skoobs outrage is based on this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787644265968857119

 

[Kautilya]

It's not a black issue. It's a conduct issue. It would ultimately affect public safety if the wrong people are promoted to positions with higher responsibility.
She should be fired.

You don't have to trip over yourself playing the race card here or injecting Trump into a non-Trump related thread.

What if the people she shared the questions with, were infact the right candidates? How do you know they weren't the right candidates? How did you make the determination that those officers were automatically not qualified, because SHE chose to share questions with them? Her sharing questions and their qualifications are 2 very different things.

I am not the one playing the race card here and tripping over myself defending a guy guilty of rape skoob. This is a nothingburger.

 

[Skoob]

What if the people she shared the questions with, were infact the right candidates? How do you know they weren't the right candidates? How did you make the determination that those officers were automatically not qualified, because SHE chose to share questions with them? Her sharing questions and their qualifications are 2 very different things.

I am not the one playing the race card here and tripping over myself defending a guy guilty of rape skoob. This is a nothingburger.

If they were the most qualified candidates, she wouldn't have to cheat the system and provide them with the answers because they would be qualified to know the answers.

She provided them the answers to be able to influence the outcome of the selection process because of her racial bias.

That is a breach of public trust and a risk to public safety.

She should be fired.

 

[Skoob]

Skoobs outrage is based on this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787644265968857119

Your info is usually based on satirical websites.
Are you trying to distract with misinformation again?
Is it possible for you to have less than 0% credibility?

 

[Kautilya]

If they were the most qualified candidates, she wouldn't have to cheat the system and provide them with the answers because they would be qualified to know the answers.

She provided them the answers to be able to influence the outcome of the selection process because of her racial bias.

That is a breach of public trust and a risk to public safety.

She should be fired.

It is documented that systemic racism prevents upward mobility for women, LGBTQ+ folks and for POCs. They could be qualified candidates, but when push comes to shove, a garden variety straight, white, male candidate will be chosen in their place. Ever heard of the term "Old white boys club"? This is very true of the police as stated in the article you posted.

Since she was in the interview panel, she probably wanted to change that and in frustration wanted to unfairly influence the outcomes.

So the following conclusions are true:

a) Yes, what she did was misconduct and she is rightfully being pulled up for review. What the consequences are, is up to the right authorities to determine.
b) No, it does not automatically mean that the ones she shared questions with are unqualified. There is no information in the article or out in public, to draw that conclusion and any such conclusion you draw, will be based solely on their race and as a result you'd be playing the race card. An "objective" guy like you, who "just asks questions", wouldn't want to do that now, would you skoob?

Therefore, what is not needed is a rightie hissy fit to demand the most severe consequences, for a "meh" misconduct issue, while jumping through hoops to defend a racist rapist.

 

[Frankfooter]

Your info is usually based on satirical websites.
Are you trying to distract with misinformation again?
Is it possible for you to have less than 0% credibility?

Its very clear why you picked this story, skoob.
You were nailed.

 

[mitchell76]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/stacy-clarke-hearing-toronto-police-hearing-1.7200658

 

[carwash]

It is documented that systemic racism prevents upward mobility for women, LGBTQ+ folks and for POCs. They could be qualified candidates, but when push comes to shove, a garden variety straight, white, male candidate will be chosen in their place. Ever heard of the term "Old white boys club"? This is very true of the police as stated in the article you posted.

Since she was in the interview panel, she probably wanted to change that and in frustration wanted to unfairly influence the outcomes.

Yet she herself is a black female Superintendent. The former Chief, Mark Saunders is a black man. One of the other candidates in the running besides Saunders for Chief in 2015 was Deputy Chief Peter Sloly- a black man born in Kingston Jamaica.

 

[Skoob]

It is documented that systemic racism prevents upward mobility for women, LGBTQ+ folks and for POCs. They could be qualified candidates, but when push comes to shove, a garden variety straight, white, male candidate will be chosen in their place. Ever heard of the term "Old white boys club"? This is very true of the police as stated in the article you posted.

Since she was in the interview panel, she probably wanted to change that and in frustration wanted to unfairly influence the outcomes.

So the following conclusions are true:

a) Yes, what she did was misconduct and she is rightfully being pulled up for review. What the consequences are, is up to the right authorities to determine.
b) No, it does not automatically mean that the ones she shared questions with are unqualified. There is no information in the article or out in public, to draw that conclusion and any such conclusion you draw, will be based solely on their race and as a result you'd be playing the race card. An "objective" guy like you, who "just asks questions", wouldn't want to do that now, would you skoob?

Therefore, what is not needed is a rightie hissy fit to demand the most severe consequences, for a "meh" misconduct issue, while jumping through hoops to defend a racist rapist.

if she legitimately wanted to change that she should have gone about it in an honest way not in a way that puts the public at risk. She's a black woman in a senior position. Toronto had a black police chief from 2015-2020. Your "old white boys club" theory doesn't hold any water. It's a convenient excuse to hide the fact that dishonesty was at play here for the sole purpose of biased selection.

What I think the consequences should be are my opinion. based on her role, experience and responsibility, a dishonest police officer should be fired.

Would you want someone cheating when promoting doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc? No.

You really can't draw a conclusion as to why she provided these people the answers? What would have been the purpose other than ensuring they were equipped with all the answers they required to be selected? What other reason could there be? I'd like to hear your explanation.

 

[Kautilya]

if she legitimately wanted to change that she should have gone about it in an honest way not in a way that puts the public at risk. She's a black woman in a senior position. Toronto had a black police chief from 2015-2020. Your "old white boys club" theory doesn't hold any water. It's a convenient excuse to hide the fact that dishonesty was at play here for the sole purpose of biased selection.

What I think the consequences should be are my opinion. based on her role, experience and responsibility, a dishonest police officer should be fired.

Would you want someone cheating when promoting doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc? No.

You really can't draw a conclusion as to why she provided these people the answers? What would have been the purpose other than ensuring they were equipped with all the answers they required to be selected? What other reason could there be? I'd like to hear your explanation.

Just because a police chief was black does not mean systemic discrimination does not happen. That is reality for many POC and in this case may be this woman has been passed over for promotions in the past either because she is a woman, or because she is black, or perhaps both.

I am not disputing that what she did was misconduct. I am saying that your outrage over a minor misconduct issue for which she is already being held accountable, is disproportionate and sus, given you have demonstrated yourself to be extraordinarily tolerant of heinous criminal behaviour such as rape.

And the reason she provided her colleagues with answers, was to help improve their chances and give them an edge. It however says nothing about their qualifications. After all if they were being considered for promotion, it would be reasonable to assume that they were already qualified, which is most likely true.

 

[Skoob]

Its very clear why you picked this story, skoob.
You were nailed.

Why because it was on every local media outlet's major news lineup this week?
Why because it's related to Toronto where I live?

Are you not concerned about police being dishonest and risking public safety by promoting unqualified people into higher positions?

 

[Butler1000]

Regardless of what this police officer did was misconduct or not, why are you so outraged? Is it because she is black and she helped other black officers? You mean she has to be fired, while in the other thread, you are going around supporting a guy guilty of rape ? Nice try Skoob.

That said, given police who assault and shoot civilians usually get away with a slap on the wrist, sharing interview questions is "meh" when compared to all that. Plus the article says she has an exemplary record. So considering all that she should get some form of punishment, but not be fired.

And as the article itself says:

Misconduct must be seen in context: professor
Wendell Adjetey, a McGill University assistant professor who wrote a report examining the context around Clarke's misconduct, testified at the tribunal on Wednesday.

Adjetey highlighted a passage from a 2022 review of the Toronto Police Service done by Deloitte LLP that said the force is "led predominantly by white males, and that this lack of diversity within leadership reinforces the status quo."

"As a scholar, as a historian, I come across examples of again very brave, very smart, very committed Canadians ... who exercise what I would say, their moral consciousness, a moral compass of sorts, once they've pulled all the levers, knocked on all the doors. When nothing changes, there's an element of exasperation that occurs. I think we need to understand that before we jump to conclusions," Adjetey said in an interview.

Sloly formerly of the Toronto Police and disgraced at Ottawa Police Chief is an example of what diversity hiring and promotion does.

Considering at one point we had 2 black deputy chiefs, one of which became chief, and we have numerous serving officers of every stripe, the notion officers were held back is ridiculous.

 

[Butler1000]

Just because a police chief was black does not mean systemic discrimination does not happen. That is reality for many POC and in this case may be this woman has been passed over for promotions in the past either because she is a woman, or because she is black, or perhaps both.

I am not disputing that what she did was misconduct. I am saying that your outrage over a minor misconduct issue for which she is already being held accountable, is disproportionate and sus, given you have demonstrated yourself to be extraordinarily tolerant of heinous criminal behaviour such as rape.

And the reason she provided her colleagues with answers, was to help improve their chances and give them an edge. It however says nothing about their qualifications. After all if they were being considered for promotion, it would be reasonable to assume that they were already qualified, which is most likely true.

The problem is now EVERY black officer is looked at as not good enough. That's what happens when special treatment is caught.

 

[Kautilya]

Sloly formerly of the Toronto Police and disgraced at Ottawa Police Chief is an example of what diversity hiring and promotion does.

Considering at one point we had 2 black deputy chiefs, one of which became chief, and we have numerous serving officers of every stripe, the notion officers were held back is ridiculous.

How do you know he was hired for his race and not his qualifications? I see no evidence of that. Your post is a good example of why this officer did what she did.

The problem is now EVERY black officer is looked at as not good enough.

By bigots, who need an excuse, sure, yes.

 

[Skoob]

Just because a police chief was black does not mean systemic discrimination does not happen. That is reality for many POC and in this case may be this woman has been passed over for promotions in the past either because she is a woman, or because she is black, or perhaps both.

I am not disputing that what she did was misconduct. I am saying that your outrage over a minor misconduct issue for which she is already being held accountable, is disproportionate and sus, given you have demonstrated yourself to be extraordinarily tolerant of heinous criminal behaviour such as rape.

And the reason she provided her colleagues with answers, was to help improve their chances and give them an edge. It however says nothing about their qualifications. After all if they were being considered for promotion, it would be reasonable to assume that they were already qualified, which is most likely true.

Good lord you are tripping over yourself here.
This woman was promoted to superintendent FFS! Why are you inventing things that didn't happen to go with your narrative?

"Help them improve their chances" is exactly why she did it.

 

[Kautilya]

Good lord you are tripping over yourself here.
This woman was promoted to superintendent FFS! Why are you inventing things that didn't happen to go with your narrative?

"Help them improve their chances" is exactly why she did it.

May be she had to have been in a higher position than a superintendent and was passed over. May be she was promoted much later than she should have been promoted. You dont have any of these details so you are unable to make deterministic comments, while feigning commitment to law and order. Nobody is buying your BS Skoob.

 

[Skoob]

May be she had to have been in a higher position than a superintendent and was passed over. May be she was promoted much later than she should have been promoted. You dont have any of these details so you are unable to make deterministic comments, while feigning commitment to law and order. Nobody is buying your BS Skoob.

She was caught cheating the system and admitted it and is now playing the race card to salvage her reputation.
She should be fired for putting the public at risk just to promote someone based on the colour of their skin.

It would have been better if she just did it because they were her friends. Still wouldn't be right. But doing it just because of race is even worse. Maybe it was for both, who knows? I would imagine that taking that risk to cheat would have been for people she knew well as opposed to strangers.

If that happened anywhere else, the person would be fired. Just because she's part of a union doesn't mean she shouldn't be fired.