| Police drug kit is "missing"... See below story of cops' "lucky find", and how the Victoria Police show signs of being as corrupt as their eastern, mob controlled, brothers. Including the story of how the Victoria tax payers were duped out of 27 million for a radio system that doesn't work (and needs replacing in five years even after they get it working) and how a Chief gets caught holding the bag, and the cute little soap opera story they fed the public to cover it up. Including the hiring of another dirty cop to keep a lid on things, and maintain business as usual. Meanwhile the sheep are continuing to support their shearers, and are being distracted with fake bomb and gun scares. We couldn't make this kind of stuff up... but we've put much of it together for you on this page... so please read. Oh, and if this is all too hard for you to believe, then please first check out our video presentation of a W5 report all about the RCMP trading payoffs for passports to Hong Kong meth amphetamine dealers.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Coke, heroin, ecstasy samples may have been stolen; probe underway - Jeff Bell TimesColonist
A drug-awareness kit filled with samples of cocaine, heroin and other illicit substances has been missing since early May from a storage cabinet at the Victoria Police Department.
The kit is one of a pair the department put together two years ago to use at prevention seminars, workshops and other gatherings. The kits contains samples of an array of drugs seized from street-level users and traffickers, Insp. Grant Smith said at a news conference Tuesday.
The approximate street value of the drugs in each kit is $1,500 to $2,000.
 
"There is no indication whatsoever of any misconduct by any employee of the Victoria Police Department," Smith said.
He said he would like to believe the kit has been mislaid and will be found, but conceded there is a possibility it has been stolen.
"We've done everything that we can to locate (it). I'm hoping that the kit has just been misplaced, or that the (police department) member that possibly borrowed it has just, for whatever reason, not returned it.
"My biggest fear is that the drugs are located by somebody other than the police."
The kit was last seen in the first week of May and Smith began his investigation soon after.
The drug kits were kept in a secure cabinet in the Targeted Policing Division on the police building's main floor, and were directly accessible to only one officer. The cabinet was usually locked, he said.
The fact that one of the kits is missing indicates "a breakdown in our policy and our procedures," Smith said.
The kits did not have to be formally signed out.
"We were using the honour system. Anybody requiring the kits would go to the constable in charge of the program. That constable would assign the kit to them."
He said both the Victoria Police Board and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner have been told, and he turned over the matter to the detective office after the kit did not turn up through his own review.
The remaining kit will not be used until a new policy is firmly in place, Smith said.
A news conference was called about the missing drug kit "to report this circumstance in as transparent and straightforward a manner as possible."
Victoria cop obstructed justice - Department says he can still work, despite conviction.
Police money laundering scheme?
Off duty cop "finds" bag filled with one million in cash... was this a police money laundering scheme, or are we actually to believe it was luck? Is it likely that someone would even put a million dollars CASH in a bag, AND then lose it? Yeah, right guys... but hey, if the public buys it, i guess that's all that really matters.  
Click here for video [Seems he's back in the news]
Why was this case necessary to be so public? Because they wanted to set a precedent in the law....... that of "Finders Keepers" for all "off-duty" police members. So don't expect them to tell you about the next million dollar bag of "lost money" one of their "off-duty" members happens to accidentally stumble across. Heck, we all lose track of such large sums all the time - it can happen to any of us, right?!!
This department has been nice enough to publish their "position" on this matter at the following URL (below).... You'll notice that, despite their apparent TOTAL lack of even the most basic comprehension of the common law, with regard to our carrying weapons for self-defence, or peaceful use of the highways, ALL OF A SUDDEN the police seem to understand the "common law" (as it exists in both Canada and England) on 'finding bags filled with cash'. Well that's nice and convenient FOR THEMSELVES isn't it? Heh, and you thought "To Serve and Protect" was referring to us - their employer!
Come on people.... how much of this are you going to put up with before you start a volunteer common law Sheriff's department, so YOU TOO can get the FULL benefit of the law? YOU ARE THE AUTHORITY THAT CREATES GOVERNMENT. [Visit our members page if you haven't already]
The story is all but purged from its original Canadian sources, but we did find a BBC link that still works..
Canada cop keeps $1m find - Dec 21/99
A Vancouver city police officer has become a millionaire after a judge ruled he could keep a bag of money he found in a city park.
Police Constable Mel Millas, 34, was off duty and walking his dog, Gus, in April when the dog began barking at a rubbish bin. Mr Millas looked inside and found a backpack stuffed with more than one million Canadian dollars.
He called police, who seized the cash and backpack. But when they failed to identify who the money belonged to, Mr Millas filed a claim to keep it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/573472.stm
___________________
http://www.jibc.bc.ca/police/policeTrainingBulletins/bulletin2/policebulletin2.htm
Finders Keepers
A number of legal issues arose after Mr. Millas called the police and turned over the money he had found in the park. One of the most fundamental issues was whether Mr. Millas, as a finder of apparently lost or abandoned property, had any legal claim to the found property.
The well-known expression "finders keepers" is in many respects a fair reflection of the common law position in Canada and England on the rights of finders of lost property. In the early case of Armory v Delamirie (1722), 1 Str. 505, 93 E.R. a young chimney sweep found a diamond ring which he gave to a jeweller to appraise. The jeweller decided to take the diamonds out of the ring and return the ring to the boy without the stones. The boy sued for the return of the diamonds. The Court held that the chimney sweep was entitled to the diamonds and could keep them against anyone except the rightful owner. The rationale from Armory has been applied in several finding cases which have occurred over the past three centuries.
If Mr. Millas was treated as an ordinary private citizen he would, like the chimney sweep in Armory, have a legal claim to the return of the found money-- assuming the true owner did not come forward to claim it. However, if Mr. Millas was treated as a police officer he would be an agent of the Crown and the money would be held by the government for the true owner or forfeited to the Crown.
Officer or Citizen?
Vancouver Police Department spokeswoman Anne Drennan went on record as saying, "In this case [Mr. Millas] was a citizen. He was off-duty. He was not acting in his capacity as a police officer." Vancouver Province (April 20, 1999). However, the Chief Constable at the time had also gone on record as saying it would be inappropriate for a police officer to retain the money. From a practical standpoint it was clear that Mr. Millas was off-duty when he found the money, but as the matter progressed towards court it became apparent that the legal question of the status of off-duty police officers would need to be answered.
Uncertainty in the Law
Somewhat surprisingly, considerable uncertainty existed in law as to the legal status of police officers when off-duty. One viewpoint was that no distinction exists between a police officer when on-duty or off-duty, and that as a result of the nature of the office of constable, a police officer is never off-duty.
An alternate view, and the position taken by the author is that there is a valid distinction to be made between on-duty and off-duty police officers. In place of the view that a police officer is on-duty "at all times", it is suggested that the proper approach is to generally treat off-duty officers as essentially private citizens and only under certain limited circumstances as "on-duty" police officers.
In British Columbia support for a distinction between on-duty and off-duty police officers exists in the following sources:
(a) Justice Wally Oppal's report into policing in British Columbia;
(b) the Police Act;
(c) Police Training and Practices; and
(d) case law.
Oppal Report
In June 1992, by Order of Council, the Honourable Justice Wally Oppal was appointed to conduct a Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia. The commission's terms of reference were expansive, and included an extensive examination of the legislation governing police officers and policing in British Columbia.
In July 1994, Justice Oppal released a two volume report entitled Closing the Gap: Policing and the Community, (1994). On the issue of off-duty police officers, Oppal J. commented (at page I-54):
Regarding off-duty conduct, the trend in Canada is toward clearer rules. Because police officers hold a special public office, Courts have allowed police agencies to hold their members to a higher standard of off-duty conduct than expected of other groups in society. However, Courts require this standard to be related to the legitimate interests and requirements of the police agency. To intervene in the private lives of its members, a police agency must show a rational relationship between the intervention and the legitimate occupational requirements and reputation of the force.
What was suggested in Justice Oppal's report is that police officers are to be treated as ordinary citizens with private lives during their time off-duty, except where their conduct would injure the reputation of the force. During their time off-duty police officers are entitled to engage in the same activities as other private citizens. For example, they may engage in political protest, operate a business, vote, run for political office, own property and sue and be sued in their own name as private citizens. If injured while off-duty they are not entitled to collect W.C.B. or any other benefits which they would ordinarily receive if injured on-duty. If a police officer is involved in a motor vehicle accident while off-duty, his or her police department has no vicarious liability.
The Police Act
In 1996, as a result of Justice Oppal's report, the Solicitor General made a number of substantial amendments to the Police Act, including, for the first time, the express recognition of the distinction between on-duty and off-duty status for police officers. The Code of Professional Conduct Regulations (Reg. 205/98) enacted under the Police Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c.367 provides for the circumstances in which off-duty police officers may be subject to discipline as a result of their off-duty conduct:
Disciplinary Defaults
4 (1). In this Code, "disciplinary default" means
(a) discreditable conduct;
(b) neglect of duty;
(c) deceit;
......
......
(l) improper off-duty conduct.
Improper off-duty conduct
16. For the purposes of section 4(l), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of improper off-duty conduct if
(a) the police officer, while off-duty, asserts or purports to assert authority as a police officer and does an act that would constitute a disciplinary default if done while the police officer is on-duty, or
(b) the police officer, while off-duty, acts in manner that is likely to discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed.
Police Training in British Columbia
| Police officers spend the majority of their time off-duty. While off-duty, police officers in British Columbia are not expected by their police departments to be continuing in the activities and duties of an on-duty police officer. Off-duty officers are not expected to patrol their neighbourhoods or chase after and flag down speeding motorists. The training at the Justice Institute of British Columbia emphasizes the difference between the expectations on officers when they are on-duty and off-duty. Officers are instructed that when they are off-duty they are not expected to take any direct action in situations that they observe, which they would normally react to while on-duty. It is stressed that in most instances they would be without back-up and appropriate weapons with which to defend themselves. They are taught, however, that there would be an expectation that they would act in some way, such as; calling 911 and staying around to be a witness for the investigating police officers.
Case Law
Prior to Mr. Millas' case, only a handful of cases had considered the off-duty status of police officers. In the case of Davis v. Minister of Pensions, [1951] 2 All ER 318 (K.B.), an off-duty war reserve constable was injured on the way to work, and claimed compensation for a "war service injury." Eligibility for compensation depended on whether the injury arose in the course of the performance of duty. The constable argued that he should be entitled to benefits because a constable is effectively "on-duty at any time" and although he was outside his regular hours of duty, any accident must be treated as being in the performance of his duties. The Court rejected this position:
When the prescribed hours of duty of a constable have come to an end and an emergency arises it is his duty to attend to that emergency, and at that moment he is on-duty in the strict and narrow sense [...] but until such an emergency arises he is in the position of any other civilian.
In other cases off-duty police officers have been treated as though they were on-duty. These cases have generally fallen into two classes. The first class of case is where the officer, while off-duty, chooses to "put himself or herself on-duty" by acting in the capacity of a police officer when he witnesses a crime in progress and decides to take action. The second class of case is where officers, although off-duty, act in a manner which is likely to discredit the reputation of their police department.
.Officers Putting Themselves On-Duty
The circumstance of an off-duty officer "putting himself on-duty" arose in the cases of R. v. Johnston, [1966] 1 C.C.C. at 226 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Crimeni ([1992]), 41 B.C. M.V.R. (2d). 2217 (Q.L.) 205 (B.C.S.C.) and Love v. Saanich (District) Workers Compensation Review Board (BC), 1 April, 1993.
Johnston involved an off-duty police officer who was employed privately to direct traffic outside a business premises. While performing this off-duty function, the officer observed several individuals causing a disturbance and chose to make an arrest. The Court of Appeal stated (at p. 226) that "a police officer is on-duty at all times and he is quite within his rights in making the arrest when he found it advisable and necessary to do so". Although the language in Johnson appears to suggest that police are always on-duty, it should be more properly seen as standing for no more than the proposition that a police officer can put themselves on-duty by acting in the capacity of a police officer.
In the similar case of Crimeni, an off-duty municipal police officer in British Columbia observed what he believed to be an intoxicated driver operating a car. After following the car until the driver voluntarily stopped, the off-duty officer presented his police identification, requested the driver surrender his licence and registration, confiscated the driver's car keys and directed a private citizen to contact the nearest police detachment. Upon arrival of the uniformed and on-duty police officers, the driver was arrested and subsequently charged with impaired driving. The driver argued that his rights under the Charter had been violated as the off-duty officer had failed to advise him of his Charter rights to counsel when he stopped the driver.
The Court considered the issue of whether the officer, although off-duty, was a civilian or was acting within his capacity as an officer when he detained the driver. The Court, after considering the applicable statutory provisions in force at the time (which did not include the since enacted off-duty provisions in The Police Act) stated:
"[the statutes] do not suggest that one ceases to be a police officer merely because one is not acting within the confines of a working day".
The Court then went on to emphasize the fact that although the officer was off-duty, he had acted in the capacity of a police officer and relied on his police authority:
"the evidence illustrates that Cst. Tottenham relied on his capacity as an officer in his dealings with the accused-he approached the appellant; presented his police identification; requested the appellant surrender his driver's licence and registration; confiscated his car keys; and directed a private civilian to help him contact the nearest police detachment".
As a consequence, the Court held that the off-duty officer was a police officer during the arrest of the driver and had violated the driver's Charter rights by not providing him with the appropriate Charter warnings.
In Love, an off-duty police officer investigated a noise outside his home late in the evening, and discovered that someone was attempting to remove a stereo from an automobile parked in his driveway. He was casually dressed and was armed only with a bamboo tomato stake. The police officer was injured in the course of apprehending the suspect, who was convicted of attempted theft and assault.
The officer claimed Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries, which he asserted occurred in the course carrying out his duties as a police officer, although he was off-duty during the incident. The Workers' Compensation Review Board concluded that the officer's injuries arose "out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the term in the Workers Compensation Act". The Board held that although police officers who are injured off-duty are not ordinarily entitled to W.C.B. compensation, in this case the police officer would be covered because "once he saw objective evidence of a crime in progress, his police officer role was engaged."
.In Johnson, Crimeni and Love off-duty police officers were treated as being on-duty because they had effectively put themselves on-duty by acting in the capacity of a police officer.
Discreditable Off-Duty Conduct
The issue of discreditable conduct by off-duty officers was considered by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in Vanovermeire v. Edmonton Police Commission (1993) , 9 AR (3d) 396. In Vanovermeire a police officer was disciplined for conducting himself in a manner which would bring discredit upon the Edmonton Police Service . While responding to a domestic abuse call, the police officer in question met the complainant, a young woman. Later, while off-duty, the police officer invited the complainant on a vacation to Illinois, during which he allegedly sexually harassed her.
The Court decided that when considering the offence of discreditable conduct, it would be inappropriate to distinguish between on and off-duty activity:
Whether we like it or not, many public servants and officials, because of their offices and positions are, in effect, 'on-duty', 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I believe police officers are in this category. So are judges ... Surely the question of whether [a] judge's conduct has brought disrepute to the justice system has nothing to do with where it took place and whether it was within normal working hours.
It is clear from Vanovermeire case that police officers, even when off-duty, are accountable to a certain standard of behaviour 24 hours a day.
The Million Dollar Question
The question of whether Mr. Millas was a police officer or a citizen when he found the money was answered on December 20, 1999 when Judge Baird-Ellan heard the case Millas v. Attorney General of British Columbia [1999], B.C.J. 3007 (Q.L.) (B.C.S.C.). Counsel for Mr. Millas argued that Mr. Millas was off-duty when he found the money, that there was a difference between on-duty and off-duty police officers and that neither of the two classes of cases which would justify treating Mr. Millas as an on-duty police officer were relevant in this case.
It was submitted that unlike the off-duty officers in Johnston, Crimeni and Love, Mr. Millas did not rely on his authority as a police officer in any fashion, or in any manner act in the capacity of a police officer when he found the money. He was not in the park in any official capacity. He was not investigating any crime. He did not initiate an investigation into who was the owner of the money. It was also submitted that in this case there was no legitimate reputation or discipline issue, as Mr. Millas' behaviour had only improved the reputation of the force for integrity.
In Millas, the Court ruled that there was no legal bar to the money being returned to its finder, Mr. Millas.
.On the issue of off-duty status of police officers in British Columbia, Baird Ellan J. stated (at para. 7):
[Counsel for Mr. Millas] has provided the relevant portions of the Oppal Report and an exhaustive review of cases dealing with the rights and duties of off-duty officers. These provisions and authorities all support the conclusion that while an off-duty officer may by his actions place himself on-duty and thereby attract the legal status that that entails, Mr. Millas was not acting in an on-duty capacity at the time he found the money, and therefore should be treated as any other member of the public.
Conclusion
The decision in the Millas case lends additional support to the position that a valid legal distinction can be drawn between the duties and responsibilities of a police officer when he or she is on-duty and when he or she has gone off-duty.
In summary, a police officer going 10-7 will have essentially the same legal status as a private citizen with the following exceptions:
- Off-duty officers may place themselves on-duty by acting in the capacity of a police officer or relying on their authority as police officers. An off-duty officer who places themselves on-duty will have all the responsibilities of an on-duty officer (such as giving Charter warnings to arrested suspects)
- Off-duty conduct which is injurious to the reputation of the force can result in an officer being treated as, and disciplined as, a police officer regardless of when or where such off-duty conduct occurs
- Off-duty officers may be called out for duty by their departments and will be treated as being on-duty.
Endnote:
1. CST John Cameron LL.B. is a member of the BC and Canadian Bar Associations. He is currently practicing law at the Vancouver law offices of McCarthy Tétrault while on educational leave from the Vancouver Police Department. The author and R. Barry Fraser of McCarthy Tétrault recently represented a Vancouver Police constable who found approximately $1 million while off-duty.
This training bulletin was written by CST John Cameron LL.B. of the Vancouver Police Dept. with the advice and suggestions of Cpl. Bill Pake of the Legal Studies section of the Justice Institute of BC Police Academy. Any questions or comments can be directed to CST Cameron at (604) 643-5980 or by e-mail to jmcameron@mccarthy.ca, or to Sgt. Mike Novakowski at (604) 528-5733 or by e-mail to mnovakowski@jibc.bc.ca.
Published under fair use....... |
Need some drugs protected? VPD SWAT is apparently up for the mission.
| Despite numerous complaints by Victoria residents of slow police response [or no response] to home invasions, assaults, obnoxious drug users trespassing on private property, etc.... it appears the VPD spares no expense when it comes to protecting their drug stash.
Despite the fact this display of "confiscated cocaine and cash" was performed the DAY AFTER the raid, for the media, at a secure location, the Victoria Police Department somehow felt the need to have machine-gun toting SWAT team members guard their stash.
Is this outrageous display of firepower (with illegal automatic weapons no less!!!) supposed to reassure the public of their oath to protect the public peace? Or warn us that the VPD are the big dogs of the hood?
Where is this cocaine now?
Why do they need machine guns, when they class them illegal?
Did someone fail their basic 'rule of law' lecture?
Is this not what happens in a police state: Law that only applies to the people?
You really do need to exercise your right to self defence with the same tools, or kiss your liberty good-bye!
________
Farcical police "sting" presented by media and Victoria Police as crippling drug trade.
The Victoria police claim to have been watching a particular group of "drug dealers" for "four years", yet all they have to show for their efforts is two ounces of cocaine and sixteen thousand in cash.
The Victoria police maintain in the below article that this group was a main supplier of crack cocaine to Victoria residence, and that they were being closely monitored for about a month, yet only the small amount was found. This is clearly a farcical attempt to misdirect the public into believing the Victoria police is working hard to reduce the supply of cocaine in Victoria, when it is believed they are working with Asian crime syndicates to distribute the narcotic - all done behind multiple "firewalls" of course.
This amount of cocaine is little more than was recently found on Hong Kong businessman David Ho, by the Vancouver Police Department, who was found in possession of one once, and is well known to be a close personal friend and business associate of Vancouver police chief Jamie Graham - Ho gives millions to "police charities". The Vancouver police chose not to even proceed with simple charges of possession.. [SEE STORY and VIDEO HERE]
Police sting cuts off key drug source
50 officers infiltrate one of city's largest cocaine, heroin suppliers
Rob Shaw - Times Colonist, Friday, April 13, 2007
One of Victoria's largest illicit drug operations, a family-run enterprise that flooded local streets with cocaine and heroin, has been dismantled after a massive undercover operation by Victoria police.
Police say they'll be watching to see how the landscape of drug dealing in the city shifts with the fall of one of the main suppliers.
[Not stops, or slows, but "shifts"... Shifts to their distributors, that is.]
But for now, they're basking in the success of one of the force's more complex undercover drug stings.
Around 50 officers spent more than a month infiltrating a tight-knit group they allege ran a brisk business ferrying hard drugs to trusted buyers around the city. At its peak, police estimate, individual dealers logged more than 100 calls an hour, and the group collected more than $100,000 a month in profits.
Slowly, undercover officers earned the gang's confidence and pulled off about 20 drug purchases, said Sgt. Grant Hamilton. The work led to a series of raids, five arrests, and more than 50 drug charges.
"This particular operation targeted one of the busiest drug-trafficking syndicates in the city of Victoria," said Hamilton. "We believe they were supplying a large portion of the street drugs that are being bought and sold."
Hamilton said the family-run business has been on police radar for about four years. The group was particularly successful because many of its organizers were not users themselves, he said. As well, they were extremely cautious.
"The people they were using were very trusted," he said. "That's why it was really difficult to infiltrate them."
A vast amount of cash and drugs moves nightly on Victoria streets. The group allegedly sold close to one kilogram of cocaine a week (worth about $25,000) and half a kilogram of heroin (worth around $30,000), police estimate.
"Once we had them in custody, how busy they were became apparent to us," said Hamilton. "One of the phones they had rang with over 100 calls just within one hour.
"They were supplying probably most of the street-level drug dealers [and] users [in Victoria]."
When the undercover operation was completed Wednesday, officers simultaneously raided an apartment in the 200-block of Gorge Road East and a house in the 2900-block of Harriet Road near Gorge Road East, and stopped a vehicle in the 500-block of Fort Street.
In all, they found $16,000 in cash, two ounces of cocaine and two computers that investigators are scouring for records, said Hamilton.
[This is hardly a significant amount for a source said to be "supplying a large portion" of Victoria's supply. It is little more than that found for personal use by wealthy politicians, lawyers and Hong Kong businessmen - as mentioned.]
Arrested were: Kathleen Dorward, 26; John Dorward, 54; Teresa Endicott, 30; Dawn Hedges, 27; and Rick Chouinard, 51.
Some of the suspects are members of the same family, while others are connected by relationships, said police. The accused appeared in court yesterday afternoon.
Police hope to use the courts to seize assets of the accused and recover some costs for their complex sting operation, dubbed "Project Plato."
Despite their success, police say whether the arrests have a long-term impact on Victoria's drug trade remains to be seen.
"We would like to hope we made a significant slowdown for sure, but time will only tell," said Hamilton. "There's always someone who fills that void."
[Yes, and we know who that is, Mr. Hamilton. We all can see your extreme care and concern for your stash in the above stories photo.]
Const. Conor King, a member of the department's drug squad, said the goal is to "take out one group at a time."
[In other words: get rid of our competition, till only those who are approved by the VPD are dealing drugs in the city of Victoria.]
It's not easy, King said, because the demand for drugs is high and the downtown core is a mecca for severely addicted drug users, who congregate for services, such as homeless shelters and the needle exchange.
"The No. 1 street drug is crack cocaine," he said.
But there is also still a great deal of heroin, which is particularly vicious because withdrawal makes users feel sick. They buy heroin to feel normal and need another drug, such as cocaine, to get a high.
Organized crime is often the main source of drugs, said King. While Victoria doesn't have the reputation of a city like Nanaimo, where a visible Hells Angels presence reminds residents that organized crime is flourishing there, King said large gangs still deal drugs in Victoria, just in a "more covert" way.
[None more "covert" than the heads of major city police departments, who have been caught doing just that in numerous cities across North America.]
|
We also found another popular mission of the Victoria Robocop unit... subduing homeless people who
threaten suicide, as the below photo highlights. The homeless man, who had apparently cut himself,
allegedly shoved a female officer, so the guys with the ski masks had to be called in to beat and
smash him to the ground. This is how a police state starts its training... by attacking the most
defenceless. [Click here to find out how dangerous SWAT teams can be to everyone]
Here is another example of what our indifference to their arrogance has produced...
Is this how they distribute the extra cash and drug booty?
Article highlighted (September 28/2006 Times Colonist - story by Rob Shaw) above stated in third paragraph that "overtime costs are 1.3 million more than budgeted for this year) In paragraph 11, Victoria Mayor Allan Lowe admitted that the Victoria Police Department "exceeds its overtime budget almost every year", and that these fees were paid out of a "contingency fund".
This is the same group of people that recently spent in excess of 17 million for a new police radio system that years later, still does not work. Where did such money come from? Isn't it the position of the police that they are constantly under funded? Even after this massive waste of tax payer money, the Victoria Police recently purchased six new police vehicles, including two brand new state-of-the-art armoured paddy wagons.
If you are wondering how some of this money is in fact distributed via governments, we know that some comes from the UN's Agenda 21 program, under the guise of protecting the environment. You'll notice, however, that police departments across Canada and the US are universally adopting costly and dangerous SUV's into their fleet patrol vehicles, rather than hybrids or other more fuel efficient vehicles. Look for them in your
area.
-----
|
