HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
What i said is a broad made of of civilians , with no one with a police background either current or retired.
Oh, you're forgetting your most idiotic part! You thought that you could obviate breaches of informant confidentiality, disclosure of ongoing wiretaps, breaches of international intelligence by integrating this unit into the police force. They would be sworn in with the same rights and obligations to sit side by side with the cops yet somehow maintain enough distance to remain objective. It's not like this solved any of your legal problems, you just made it worse.
In the end, you either destroyed the objectivity of the board by integrating them OR you didn't bother and just made your breaches even more repugnant.
Let's not forget the cases you ruined by seizing notebooks. That was particularly bad. I can go into that one again in greater detail, because its fun pointing out your mistakes!
$1:
And i 'extorted' no on i laid out where if someone wishes to be a police officer their financial records and those of their families are open to scrutiny at will by this said board.
Yes you did. When you make the financial records of a child available to this board against threat of firing his parent, that's not a reasonable justification for demanding such. That's textbook extortion as defined in S. 346 of the Criminal Code. And it's two counts.
$1:
Again to facilitate the oversight of police which is very badly needed, again highlighted by this article. And i trampled nothing, i also said that if perspective police applicants wanted to apply for the position they would have to sign wavers with respect to that.
Oh you trampled rights like a drunken elephant. When I asked what would happen if the applicant's spouse declined to make her financial records known, you said he got fired. She had to permanently waive her S. 8 Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Ditto her kids. Ditto the whole fandamily.
$1:
People in both military and civilian position sign waivers limiting what they can say and do everday as a natural part of employment. By you lights if any company anywhere forces someone to sign a NDA they are themselves in breach of the constitution and the right to free speech, you dont get to play the 'constitution' card only when it suits you jackass
No dumb-dumb, you want to make waiving your constitutional rights a condition of employment such as compulsion to act as a witness against yourself. Your simplistic notion that non-disclosure agreements amount to violations of free speech is both idiotic and wrong.
You should have realized by now that I know quite a bit more about this than you do, so tossing something out there without thinking it through should be one of your top priorities to avoid.
A non-disclosure agreement works because the employee becomes privy to sensitive knowledge, which in this case can essentially be thought of as the company's "property". The agreement represents a contract as to how the employee can use that "property". To dumb it down for you, if you rent a car, the rental company makes you sign a contract governing your behaviour with the car. You can't paint it green, put fire decals on it and then smash it into the side of a bus claiming it's your constitutional right to Freedom of Expression. You've damaged their property and there are penalties for it.
Your simpleton comparison fails to understand the fundamental difference between respecting somebody else's property rights and being compelled to be a witness against yourself.
Non-disclosure agreements are sound because you're contracted to respect another person's rights (yes, companies are people for this purpose). Your proposal mandates waiving your own rights. That's not a legal mandatory condition for employment.
Fuck you suck at this.
CKA Uber 
Active Member 
