News - Stories and Rants
Friday 12 September 2014
The Fredericton Police Force are Corrupt!!!!!!
Charles,
These posts are diluting the issues. Charles has the right to express his beliefs and opinions; that is not libel or defamation if he believes what he is saying, which he does. You are misunderstanding the Charter right to hold and express your own beliefs - that is why the FP Farce came after Charles under an unconstitutional charge for defamatory libel - they knew that did not rely on Charles actually believing the comments he made, which is what made it unconstitutional. That is also why they have not come after Charles again in a civil proceeding, because Charles believes what he says and writes. None of you were with him the day he was kneed in the groin by L'Oiseau. None of you have gone through the indignities he suffered at the hands of police officers, who should have protected his rights and freedoms, instead of violating them. No, Charles does not write hate speech but he does express his own frustration at the indignities this police force has heaped on him.
You lot should actually study Charter rights and decisions properly, before you make foolish, ignorant comments. Anonymous, at 21:40 and 15:40, you are entirely incorrect, The Charter right is the right to express your own beliefs and opinions and is nothing to do with criminal charges of slander and libel, which are publicly printing or stating what the perpetrator knows to be false and untrue.
You are all so forgiving that the police filed two separate, falsified and fraudulent applications, that were actual lies participated in by FPF officers Robb Costello, Ed Smith and Simmons Beauchamp but none of you cared that the police lied in writing and, since they did this more than once, it was clearly NOT a "bad cut and paste job" as the very expensive City report tried to make out. It was blatant fraud, conspiracy, corruption, bad faith, breach of trust and breach of public duty but all you idiots bang on about is what you think Charles did wrong. No wonder this province is so corrupt, no wonder our police are out of control - you people are endorsing their corruption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
There is no quit in Charles.
ReplyDeleteDan Bustier has tried everything he could think of to frame Charles and has always failed and will always fail,
The former fpd chief and the current chief Leane Bitch have both tried to frame Charles and failed.
Booby, Loiseau, The river rat and all the other cops also failed to frame and jail Charles also and all of them have failed..
If this was 25 years ago Charles would be dead or in jail for life because he would have been framed for some bullkaka things and no one would have heard about it.
Now with social media you cant hide nothing.
If it was like in the old days Charles would be history.
that pore Wombat woman that the fpd have been terrorizing for years would be history just like everyone the fpd hate.
But in Charles is a different bread and as soon as they all relies that that Scottish welfare bum will never quit and that they cant win they might leave him alone and he might do the same.
Everything is on the internet and it will be on the internet for ever so there is no hiding anything.
--maurice the homeless guy--
Thats only half right. As Bernard Richard pointed out, the police's biggest mistake was charging Charles with Section 301, when Section 300 would have better applied. Don't lecture people about charter rights when you don't understand them. The legislation is NOT what 'charles' believes, but rather what any 'reasonable person' would believe.
ReplyDeleteAnd Charles actually DIDN"T believe what he said. He called the police you know what (lets try to keep that word out of this new blog shall we). And he even explained what he meant, which was that 'homophobes often act out because they are secretly gay, so if a police calls somebody a blank, then that may mean they are one'. So charles didn't actually believe the police were, in fact he pointed out numerous times that that was not what he was saying, which means he didn't believe it himself.
I can't walk up to a person and say "I'm going to kill you" and then claim its my 'freedom of expression'. Just like I can't advocate terror. And again, as far as freedom of speech goes, this action closed off his google blog, which is a contract with a private company and has nothing to do with his freedom of speech-THIS time.
I agree with the tone of your comment, because this is what is great about Charles, and what is so piss poor about our society. I was going to say in the other thread that talked about 'consquences' that its interesting that so little attention is paid to the fact that the police, who DID the offensive actions, suffered no consequences AT ALL.
So I'll say it again, my criticisms here aren't because of sympathy for the police or letting them off the hook. The sad fact is that in our society unless its actually criminal, then making police suffer the consequences of their actions is impossible. I understand charles rage and why he acts in this way, and much of it can easily be laid at the door of the government. But when he goes over the top he simply loses credibility and enables the government to do exactly what they did. He knows it himself, it was clear in his interview with the media. The ironic thing is that it WAS slander and libel (he wrote AND said it), when he has all kinds of legitimate ammunition which makes the police and politicians look bad. So when he starts 'talking crazy' then it just turns off ANY support he may get. And sadly, in a situation like charles, all you have is the truth and public support, and only one of those is likely to have any kind of social impact.
Mikel, you just shot yourself in the foot with a really stupid comment. You said: "The sad fact is that in our society unless its actually criminal, then making police suffer the consequences of their actions is impossible." What is so incredibly foolish about that comment is: WHAT THE FPF DID TO CHARLES WAS CRIMINAL. It was a criminal offence to try and elicit information about Charles by fraudulently misrepresenting the facts. Dude, what are you smoking?
ReplyDeleteOh dear Mikel. You just explained that Charles believes that people who accuse others of particular wrongs must be perpetrators themselves. He therefore believes there are many deviants and perverts in the FPF. That is his belief and it is his Charter right to believe that and express that belief. The "reasonable" person's belief is the standard used by judges, not by a person entitled to Charter protections, who might suffer mental disorders or strong beliefs for reasons of religion or culture. You should think, and research, before you write.
ReplyDeleteI am still quite amazed that you always turn this around against Charles and ignore completely that the Fredericton Police Farce actually did commit serious crimes and Charter violations against Charles. They tried to charge him with an offence carrying five years in jail. They committed criminal acts with the applications to his ISP provider - and you conveniently write that off and turn it against him. He is not paid a salary to protect the public interest and uphold justice. There is no doubt the police committed fraud etc against Charles and the mayor and City conspired, with the NBPC, to protect the FPF's criminal acts. Mikel - you are blind to the real issues and there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Just because you THINK something is criminal doesn't make it so. The police said that the form was a mistake, in proving something is criminal, you need two things, act AND intent. Nobody proved that what they did was fraudulent, so unless you do that, then its not criminal. People make 'mistakes' all the time, that doesn't equal fraud. I agree that this was a stretch, but there was no investigation, and no court ever called this a fraud. Whether it was fraud or not, we simply don't know, and you saying it was so doesn't make it so. You weren't even there, you know nothing about it. If somebody has a gun and it goes off it doesn't necessarily mean they meant to kill someone, they could have been cleaning it, it could have been self defence, or any number of things. I certainly agree that there should at least have been an investigation and get people under oath to see if it was fraud, but until you know something, you don't know squat and only an idiot thinks they do.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other comment, thats nonsense. You say that a judge uses the 'reasonable person' standard but that a person can say anything they want at any time regardless of anything because its their right. Well, no its not. Go read your charter. ALL rights are subject to the charter, one of the first lines is "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Which means that the judge, using his standard, will evaluate comments based on what a 'reasonable' person would believe.
As for charles, like I said, thats not a question of belief, because as Charles will tell everybody, he doesn't accuse anybody of anything, he 'asks questions'. Virtually all his blogs had question marks at the end of them. If you go watch his media interview he admits this numerous times, that he never made any actual allegations. He NEVER said "I believe the fredericton police are perverts". He always left it as a question.
As for the other crap, thats garbage. I've defended charles on here and criticized the police a thousand times more than you have. The only thing I've criticized charles for is his absurd allegation about what members of the police might be, and I've said numerous times that the only reason I said it was because it makes charles look crazy, which makes him lose credibility, not for any sympathy of the police. So suck it.