The Real David Miller.........exposed.

[Ranger68]

Pretty rich stuff coming from a guy that called DiManno a "self-aggrandizing punk" earlier in this thread. lol

Hey, just pointing out the fallacies in YOUR argument, pal - not mine.

"Whether or not any of us personally like Rosie DiManno or enjoy her writing style is irrelevant here. So is a critique of her journalistic abilities."
=
"Whether or not any of us personally like David Miller or enjoy his mayoral style is irrelevant here. So is a critique of his mayoral abilities."

 

[Ranger68]

Tiger, I think the only rot is coming from your incredibly puerile, specious arguments.
Call back when you have a clue.
Enjoy Miller's tenure.
Then enjoy it some more when he's re-elected! LOL
I know most of us will.
Buh-bye.

 

[oldjones]

The first line of DiManno's piece:
"Does that Judas kiss come with any tongue, I wonder, a wet and orifice-probing slurp from the Toronto police union to Mayor David Miller?"

So, I guess you agree with the rest of us that DiManno's articles fall short of intelligent discussion.

Good to know.

Absolutely agreed. As I said above: what Rosie was trying to get at (like some posters) is a mystery to me, and for sure, the predeliction she shares with some of her former colleagues at the Sun for laying on insults instead of laying out facts is apparent in the article.

As she describes the events, the only thing that one might legitimately say was wrongly done was failing to recognize that Julian Fantino was the Divinely Annointed Messiah of Law Enforcement.
But to do that would have required the kind of extra-normal insight that she (and some posters) apparently are using to discern the Mayor's Satanic motives and machinations.

How her column got past the editors, except maybe as the Smile of the Day is beyond me.

 

[Ranger68]

It's simple - she sells by being disagreeable, argumentative, and incendiary - a simple journalistic formula - facts and logic don't need to enter into her equation.
Hey, maybe Tiger could start writing for the Star!
LOL

 

[Tiger Williams]

Tiger, I think the only rot is coming from your incredibly puerile, specious arguments.

Puerile?!?
Specious?!?
Too funny!
I think the Ranger just got back from a visit to Dictionary. com. lol

 

[Ranger68]

No, no dictionary required Tiger.
Although, I can understand that you and Rosie need to keep one handy for just such emergencies as these.
LOL

 

[Tiger Williams]

Hey, maybe Tiger could start writing for the Star!

I'll start writing for the Star when you stop writing for NOW magazine my friend. lol
PS: say hi to Jack and Olivia for me.

 

[Ranger68]

Nice try, Tiger. That would amuse people who know me to no end.
Keep guessing, though.
LOL

 

[Tiger Williams]

So if the Mayor had taken the seat on the Board and all else had happened just as it has, you'd be happy?

Happy that he wouldn't have been able to deny having a hand in the process, yes. Not happy that on a tie vote someone's fate could be decided one way or the other.

Mayor hasn't time to sit on every committee, Mayor (although it's actually Council) has someone fill the seat. Mayor may or may not discuss with Board member—you claim to know he did—and Board member happens to vote as Mayor—again you claim to know—might have hoped and wanted.

I'm a little surprised at these comments coming from you, OJ.
Usually you show a little more insight and acumen with your stances.
(don't always agree with you but your points are generally quite arguable)
But please tell me you don't actually believe that Miller 'didn't have the time' to sit on the PSB.
I mean, seriously OJ.
You don't actually believe that do you? lol

 

[oldjones]

Happy that he wouldn't have been able to deny having a hand in the process, yes. Not happy that on a tie vote someone's fate could be decided one way or the other.lol

So where is this "hand in the process" you think so objectionable Tiger? Evidence. Facts. Actual events.
And if you canfigure out a better way to deal with tie-votes, I think they still do ticker tape parades. Wasn't the US example instructive in 2000? In some states ties are decided by cutting cards. Tie votes fail seems much wiser to me.

I'm a little surprised at these comments coming from you, OJ.
Usually you show a little more insight and acumen with your stances.
(don't always agree with you but your points are generally quite arguable)
But please tell me you don't actually believe that Miller 'didn't have the time' to sit on the PSB.
I mean, seriously OJ.
You don't actually believe that do you? lol

Sorry my deliberate choice of a trivial example apparently misled; the Mayor doesn't sit on lots of committees of which he's a member or could be. For any number of reasons. Why on earth would that be a sinister choice? When he decided not to sit on the Police Board, there was no Fantino Question*, and replacement-choosing was far enough in the future to take his seat then.

I know of no requirement of law, ethics or morals, that requires he express no opinion on matters that might be before a Board on which he doesn't sit. Nor have you or anyone objecting to his supposed conduct produced the slimmest shred of evidence that he has.

Nor have you any evidence that Ms. McConnel's conversations have been at all improper—even if they've been with <gasp> The Mayor. Nor is there any requirement that no two politicians can think, or vote alike—which is all anyone seems to be able to accuse anyone of.

So howbe we get some actual facts on the table or call it a lost cause? I believe the classic wording is: "Put up or shut up"

*Always remember, that the Chief is trying to cut a new deal, one that he was sounded out about and according to rumour, rejected towards the end of Lastman's term. Then—with the new Mayor voluntarily sidelined—he asks the "dysfunctional board" to extend his contract. Now there's Mchiavellian for you! Just joking

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Has anyone noticed how all threads on the Internet lead inevitably to attacks and a meltdown, whereas all discussions in the 'real world' end with "Cheers...and how are the kids?"

The difference is striking.

 

[Tiger Williams]

And if you canfigure out a better way to deal with tie-votes, I think they still do ticker tape parades. Wasn't the US example instructive in 2000? In some states ties are decided by cutting cards. Tie votes fail seems much wiser to me.

Ensuring that the board has the allotted members (or replacements) present when voting seems wiser to me. Isn't that the premise behind having 7 members as opposed to 6?
Majority rules.
Sounds almost too simple doesn't it?
Democratic and logical.

 

[oldjones]

Ensuring that the board has the allotted members (or replacements) present when voting seems wiser to me. Isn't that the premise behind having 7 members as opposed to 6?
Majority rules.
Sounds almost too simple doesn't it?
Democratic and logical.

Absolutely as you say: Majority rules. Since a tie means no majority, the proposed measure fails to pass. End of story. What's the problem? Do get a copy of Roberts Rules at any library. Democratic bodies from the US Senate to the local Stamp club have run their proceedings by rules like those for hundreds of years. They're the rules that define "majority".

It's hardly practical to have all business stop when a single member can't attend. Can no one be sick? How can the Police Board force the Province to replace Gardner? Isn't Norm entitled to 'clear' his name by all available avenues?

In the real world, work has to go on, even when circumstances produce a tie. If the Board could conduct no business until the suspended member was replaced, not only would Fantino's contract have expired, but no search committe could be struck to consider his successor.

This elementary stuff was dealt with way earlier in this thread. Now if your beef was with the protracted and vague mess around the suspension/replacement I'd be with you. It's cruel to Gardner and hamstrings the Board. But all that's the Province's to do, and at least some of that legislation was Harris-stuff. None of it this government's. The fuss folks are making only encourages the Liberals to leave the mess to blow over, 'cause it's unlikely they'd appoint guys like Norm. But then there'd be your majority, so happiness would spread across the land. yes?

 

[Tiger Williams]

Sorry my deliberate choice of a trivial example apparently misled; the Mayor doesn't sit on lots of committees of which he's a member or could be. For any number of reasons. Why on earth would that be a sinister choice? When he decided not to sit on the Police Board, there was no Fantino Question*, and replacement-choosing was far enough in the future to take his seat then.

OJ this isn't the Cycling Committee.........or the Humber Treatment Plant Liasion Committee we're talking about here. It's the Police Services Board.
(a pie any Mayor wants his grubby little fingers in)
Miller is no different.
He just wants others to throw the old pie out. (which some still want to eat)
Contrary to your last statement, the Fantino Question was very much alive at the time. Miller was well aware that the Chief's contract was coming up for renewal. (I may think Miller is exhibiting some rather snake-like behaviour in this situation but he is definitely not a stupid man)
If you recall the Police Union was having it's own problems with the Police Services Board (when hasn't it?) and was actually being supportive of the Chief at the time. (you conveniently forgot to mention this when using the current union's stance to strengthen your position earlier)
Do you really expect people to believe that the Mayor 'didn't have the time' to sit on the PSB (when he knew there would be sparks flying) then.............but now for some strange reason he does?
If you do I have a lovely condominium for sale right at the corner of Jane and Finch. A city view with parks, schools and shopping right at your doorstep. Asking 350K.

 

[Tiger Williams]

Almost forgot about this........

Police union says Chief should go (consistent with their stand 3-4 years ago)

Yeah.......but inconsistent with their stand 10 months ago. The Union does what's best for the Union. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Mayor says, "The union obviously believes in civilian oversight"

I'm not sure what is funnier about that statement:

1. Miller saying it and expecting any Torontonian to actually believe that the union for the Boys in Blue wants a group of civilians to oversee them,

or

2. You quoting Miller saying it and expecting me to react with anything other than laughter.

Either way it's chuckle-worthy and I most enjoyed it. Thanks.

 

[oldjones]

Re: Almost forgot about this........

quote:
Originally posted by oldjones
Mayor says, "The union obviously believes in civilian oversight"

I'm not sure what is funnier about that statement:

1. Miller saying it and expecting any Torontonian to actually believe that the union for the Boys in Blue wants a group of civilians to oversee them,

or

2. You quoting Miller saying it and expecting me to react with anything other than laughter.

Either way it's chuckle-worthy and I most enjoyed it. Thanks.
2. You quoting Miller saying it and expecting me to react with anything other than laughter.

Either way it's chuckle-worthy and I most enjoyed it. Thanks.

Like Rosie DiManno, I think you missed the obvious irony in Miller's remark. You and I and Miller seem agreed on civilian oversight's popularity at Union HQ.
The Chief's contract was not 'on the table' until he put it there; since it had a five-year term when it was signed, anyone and everyone expected it to just expire. You'll have to refresh my memory about any earlier consideration (beyond Mel's rumoured 'last-gasp' patronage' offer to renew, which Fantino supposedly rejected—all gossipAFIK). Even if it were, what is wrong/unusual about deciding you're time's better spent elsewhere—there is more to TO than its cops—and seeing that your place is filled by someone you trust? Happens all the time.
Again, you seem to be replying from secret knowledge of Miller's motives. Wish you'd share, because otherwise none of the events as reported are really worthy of comment, nor the individuals worthy of censure.
Of course one may like or dislike anyone for any number of personal reasons: Mayor, Chief, neighbour, whomever. But debate in a public forum should be conducted on facts, and with objectivity.

 

[Tiger Williams]

So howbe we get some actual facts on the table or call it a lost cause? I believe the classic wording is: "Put up or shut up"

Ouch!
Isn't that a little harsh.......coming from Terb's unofficial yet self-adorned Dean of Decorum?
And speaking of facts........I've asked you and others more than once to factually dispute anything Rosie stated in her column and the silence was deafening.
You're right about one thing though. We are probably at the lost cause point because I happen to think Miller is being less than candid about his role in all of this, while you seem to believe he is innocent. Without the transparency he promised when he took office I guess we will never know for sure.

 

[Tiger Williams]

Absolutely as you say: Majority rules. Since a tie means no majority, the proposed measure fails to pass. End of story. What's the problem?

Here's the problem, OJ:

Previously we had a situation where 3 members of the Police Services Board wanted a new chief and 3 wanted Fantino.
Tie vote= motion defeated and Fantino loses his job.

Yesterday a motion was put forward to officially start the search for a new Police Chief. Guess what? Another tie vote. Motion is defeated.
So now we are getting rid of the old guy, but we can't look for the new guy?

Please tell me again what you like about this ridiculous method of deciding crucial issues in government?
(oh yeah.........and where do we go from here? I haven't picked up my copy of the 'Roberts Rules' as of yet.)

 

[Cardinal Fang]

The vote on whether or not the City should have extended the contract with Fantino should have been put aside until the new Police Services Board was appointed.

To allow a dysfunctional board, including the sitting chairman who has a public complaint against the Police Dept and a member who was suspended for accepting free ammunition, to vote on this motion was a huge political and procedural mistake!

They wanted a political minefield? They got it. As I said before, they have every right to get rid of Fantino, at the very least make it look fair.

 

[Tiger Williams]

The vote on whether or not the City should have extended the contract with Fantino should have been put aside until the new Police Services Board was appointed.
To allow a dysfunctional board, including the sitting chairman who has a public complaint against the Police Dept and a member who was suspended for accepting free ammunition, to vote on this motion was a huge political and procedural mistake!
They wanted a political minefield? They got it. As I said before, they have every right to get rid of Fantino, at the very least make it look fair.

Bingo!
This is not even really about Fantino any more.
It's about the procedure involved, and the lack of transparency.
Regardless of how and when this is resolved is mute at this point.
The foul stench will remain.