McFayden supports criminals!

At least that's the message I got from seeing his busload of supporters in their convict costumes this afternoon. Felt like a really cheesey, American style political stunt. Most of the people I heard around me where asking "what's up the costumes"? It definitely felt like pandering to the lowest common denominator to me. I'm sure a smart guy (supposedly) like Hugh could come up with a more intelligent way of getting his message out than asking a few dozen supporters to dress up in cheap prisoner uniforms.

So what was their actual message they were trying to get across?

I am so dissapointed in his campaign so far. He doesn't seem to have any traction, and I have yet to hear one idea from him in his ads
Was this some sort of stunt about the warrants that were cancelled?

I have no idea what the message was or what the stunt was about. Just saw a couple dozen people in convict costumes (complete with plastic balls and chains) being dropped off on Corydon by a "McFayden 2011" bus, and being picked up about 30 min later. At least it provided some lunch time entertainment.

Maybe he is saying his campaign team are crooks?

Even though Hugh is goofy I would still prefer him over Selinger. Sigh...it'll be a sad sad day for Manitoba if the NDP get back in.

Haha. I read that in don cherries voice

Goth_chic wrote:Even though Hugh is goofy I would still prefer him over Selinger. Sigh...it'll be a sad sad day for Manitoba if the NDP get back in.

I agree with this, however he has said nothing about what he will do if elected, he has no platform that I have seen or heard.

Watch TV...he's got an ad running calling Selinger a liar and saying he is running scared.

btw...relax folks...it's early in the campaign....and being summer, nobody is really listening now anyway.

Wait til September and see the sparks fly.

I sure hope you're right jtf.

and... it was indeed the protest against the vacating of the pre 1999 warrants.
somewhere in the sun today.

grumpy old man wrote:I sure hope you're right jtf.

Cross all your fingers and toes.

I'm with Goth on the thought of the NDP getting in again....I'm not sure of what I'd do actually...but moving out of province would be a consideration for sure.

Its funny how Manitoba is supposedly such a rosey place because of jobs and such...but imagining how bad we will look when everyone opens their eyes are realizes that a substantial chunk of those jobs are if not direct public sector jobs, indirectly through public sector funds ( ie work on bipole, east side road, expanding duff's ditch. building completely unneeded WRHA buildings...so basically our massive construction business) and when the money dries up it will show just how bad off we really are.

Deank wrote:and... it was indeed the protest against the vacating of the pre 1999 warrants.
somewhere in the sun today.

Does it make financial sense to go after non-violent offender types who had a minor run in with the law < 12years ago (some as many as 30 years ago) and who have had no further legal problems since? Sounds to me like they learned their lesson. How much would it cost to enforce those 1,800 warrants and the accompanying trials, incarcerations etc.? I thought Conservatives were all about fiscall prudence, maybe Hugh is not so great at math.

If that is the issue that all this grandstanding was about then things really are gonna get ugly this fall. A complete non-issue for anyone with some common sense. It's not like they vacated warrants for violent or serious crimes. I'd like to see a list of what these offences are that got Hugh all worked up, are we talking jaywalking and unpaid speeding tickets or something more serious? I highly doubt that in an election year even the commies bastards are dumb enough to vacate 1,800 warrants for "real" crimes.

Tom listed the list when it happned. umm.. possession of marijuanna..umm. B&E?, theft...fruad? I think was about it.

grumpyrom wrote:

Deank wrote:and... it was indeed the protest against the vacating of the pre 1999 warrants.
somewhere in the sun today.

Does it make financial sense to go after non-violent offender types who had a minor run in with the law < 12years ago (some as many as 30 years ago) and who have had no further legal problems since? Sounds to me like they learned their lesson. How much would it cost to enforce those 1,800 warrants and the accompanying trials, incarcerations etc.? I thought Conservatives were all about fiscall prudence, maybe Hugh is not so great at math.

If that is the issue that all this grandstanding was about then things really are gonna get ugly this fall. A complete non-issue for anyone with some common sense. It's not like they vacated warrants for violent or serious crimes. I'd like to see a list of what these offences are that got Hugh all worked up, are we talking jaywalking and unpaid speeding tickets or something more serious? I highly doubt that in an election year even the commies bastards are dumb enough to vacate 1,800 warrants for "real" crimes.

Depends what the crimes were that the warrant was issued against.

If B&E, theft, fraud, then it depends upon how serious those crimes were. I'm all for cancelling the warrants but continuing the prosecution when/if bad guy reappears in the system.

We can't be too cavalier about dismissing these warrants. If they were important enough to issue in the first place then they should be followed through. Otherwise drop the charges or don't lay them to begin with.

Remember why the backlog grew to begin with.

No wonder our police are frustrated. They arrest people that the system can't be bothered with...

"We can't be too cavalier about dismissing these warrants. If they were
important enough to issue in the first place then they should be
followed through. Otherwise drop the charges or don't lay them to begin
with."

Exactly.

Hell if nothing else they are on the books, and then when some random cop pulls them over because of a broken tailight the cop actually knows something about the person and maybe there is something suspicious about him that the cop cant put his finger on.. like why is there so many knives with a dark substance on the back seat. He will have a legitimate excuse to search the car.

Putting criminals in prisons could be considered "support", n'est pas?

grumpy old man wrote:

No wonder our police are frustrated. They arrest people that the system can't be bothered with...

Don't be too quick to judge just who is responsible for the backlog.

The police regularly charge people that they should not.

They throw people into the system to be rid of the file. It is my belief from personal experience that the police are a major part of the problem.

Pre 1999 warrants are gone? Then I can get outside with my real name and real identification!
Phew, am I ever relieved!

I bet they won't forgive any outstanding fines.

JTF wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

No wonder our police are frustrated. They arrest people that the system can't be bothered with...

Don't be too quick to judge just who is responsible for the backlog.

The police regularly charge people that they should not.

They throw people into the system to be rid of the file. It is my belief from personal experience that the police are a major part of the problem.

I'm not so jaundiced that I believe the police are a major part of the problem. Contributors? Sure.

A system that allows those charged to fester (or intentionally "earn" 2-for1 credits in a holding cell) has to take the brunt of the blame.

Our justice system allows that.

I have a very good friend that works within the system that tells me that rescheduling of court dates take place regularly because of a lack of qualified court staff.

So. You're correct. It is a combination of things.

But I'm a bit sick of hearing that the police need more resources all the time. That's complete bullshet.

Switching to federal. The libs(umm who?) are saying aha! Stats say there is less crime so we don't need those jails you want to build.... Conveintly forgetting that the stats actually say there is less crime PER CAPITA. And there just happens to be a lot more capita then there was in 1983

Also forgetting that crime has only gone down since we started getting tougher on crime

Plus...many, many people no longer report crime as it doesn't do anything but tie up their time.

The numbers are even quoted as "reported crimes".

Rapes (something one would not think of NOT reporting) are way up. That says it best to me.