Honestly, i’m far more worried about biometric profiling done by fixed security cameras than recordings of me talking to a cop. Though stoping both would be nice, i’m far more worried about the cop in the present than the harassment in the future.
There are no laws against subjects and witnesses from recording an interaction with police.
But police encounters should always be recorded via dash cam and body cam, not only to hold the officers accountable, but also to aid in proving a suspect’s guilt or innocence.
There are reasonable limitations to subject and witness ability to record police.
Ie limitations on what subjects can do with their hands, and limitations on how close witnesses can get.
I’d like every police interaction to be recorded, not a system where the officer can decide if an interaction gets recorded. I also understand that police officers deserve privacy to use the toilet and fart while out and about, without being recorded by their boss.
My comment was basically if ANYONE present thinks that the interaction should be getting recorded, it should be getting recorded.
I am totally against biting landlords. Absolutely. I condemn people clawing landlords faces. Landlords are human beings that definitely shouldn’t be punched in the face repeatedly, because they’re not parasites.
Chairman Mao redistributed the land of 700, 000 landlords to those who had none, and executed them, and personally I think thats just taking things a little bit too far.
I absolutely completely agree! If given the position I would not do exactly the same. I wouldn’t make money unnecessary and even completely pointless. In that, I’m a lot like Trump! I’m not even being sarcastic saying so.
B.C.’s Housing Minister, Ravi Kahlon, told Global News Monday that this couple’s landlord should “give himself a head shake” but he is in a legal position to do this.
“I mean, this is the challenge that we have with sometimes landlords and tenants. Most landlords are good people and they operate in a good, transparent way. But this is a situation in which reminds us that we need to continue to find ways to strengthen the rules to ensure that the tenants are protected when they move into new places,” Kahlon said.
I really don’t understand why people keep perpetuating the belief that vast majority of landlord are anything but for profit investors and society should treat them as such.
This loophole has existed and been used unfairly for a long time now I really don’t understand why they haven’t amended the RTA to at least cap the extra occupancy increase and exempt a reasonable amount of children.
Of course I don’t condone shooting perps or their lawyers, but I frankly don’t have any difficulty whatsoever in understanding him. This case is one of the most vile crimes I’ve seen in our province, and I can’t imagine what the family has had to go through.
And to add to that, while the defence lawyers certainly are just doing their job, their arguments were utterly revolting. An insult to the victim, her family, and the collective intelligence of the people of this province. Supposedly the perp’s lawyer has received copious death threats, and again - I’m sure none of us condone shooting lawyers, I think it’s hard to blame people.
I’m just glad the jury had none of it and found him guilty.
Also hoping the father doesn’t get a significant charge for this. If anyone would be “not of sound mind” it would be a dad who had to listen to the disgusting arguments made in the defence of the animal that raped and murdered his child.
Ah, yes. The best way to transport a train car is to put it on a truck. If only I lived in a country that was built on a railroad that went from coast to coast or something. You would think they would just load it up on cargo rail to bring it across country.
Rail is great unless you don’t fit the requitements… I bet the mostly assembled trains didn’t fit within the largest rail car dimensions or something silly as rail is often much cheaper for long distant large shipments.
Considering a single flatcar can carry two shipping containers back to back, I don’t think this would have presented an issue. I highly doubt anyone ever even bothered to give any thoughts to what the best way to transport them was and just went with whatever default logistics company they usually use and let them do whatever they want. There’s a reason we are almost dead last in terms of our climate action and GHG production in the world.
You might be right, but I was more thinking the height and width limits for the snow sheds and tunnels in the Rockies. Some large loads can ONLY go via truck / highway due too their dimensions.
As a huge railfan, I’d say it would make the most sense to ship by rail if they had dozens of trainsets to deliver at once.
They have to load it on a truck anyway to get it from the test track to the switching area a couple kilometres away, then load it off the truck to deliver it. For one or two trains made of 3 parts each, trucking it seems more cost-effective.
My mum met him at a party decades ago. He invited her out to a party, but one of the other FN women there told her to be careful of him as he was a major creep.
Its to prevent a family of say 2, moving in 6 more people with same rent amount. a large amount of residents does increase wear on a unit. The baby needing to be accounted for is just bullshit though.
Even the excuse behind the rule is bullshit. I can see how more people can equate to more utilities, but not additional rent on the unit. If people are clean and respectful, who gives a shit how many people are living there? Wear and tear is just a lame excuse to make a money grab when the unit isn’t being brought up to new standard in between each tenant.
It happens though, carpet wears out faster, more people means more potential wall damage, appliances are doing double or triple duty cycles…and will fail sooner… Have you ever been to a single uni dorm vs multiple tennanted? The more people the less everyone takes onus of the place and it gets trashed. The law ahould have a cap, so it is not extortion, and landlord should consider how low or high risk the temnants are. For example there are affordable rent housing, city owned buildings, in some cities. The tennants for whatever reason (drugs, mental health) tear off moldings, pull sections of drywall off, remove fixture items. The more people in a unit like that the more chance it will get destroyed. I don’t think everyone is like that ( i remted for 10 years and treated it as my own home) but it does happen.
Probably because, with the cost of housing nowadays, a baby can grow up and stay with their parents in that apartment until they’re 40 years old. That would mean there’s an additional adult in that unit.
Then the question would be, at what age a child should be considered an additional occupant?
Why does occupancy even matter in terms of the amount of rent? You're leasing the space. Maybe the argument is "wear and tear," or if utilities are included? Even so, $600/mo is a ridiculous amount even for an additional permanent adult tenant.
Something tells me that there might be more to this story. It sounds like the landlord wants these tenants out of the residence, and doesn't want to (or can't) go through an eviction proceeding. This nonsense amounts to "constructive eviction." Why does the landlord want these tenants out?
If you want to discourage subletting, you put a clause in the lease that forbids subletting. Sure, an additional adult would generate some additional wear and tear, but certainly not $600/mo worth. Besides which, the wear and tear cost would come in the form of post-tenancy cleaning, carpet, paint - and none of those have a real difference in cost whether you have two or three adult tenants.
It’s more cycles on the laundry machines. You cook more so the stove might wear out faster since things seem to break easier nowadays.
Damage just happens as well in a tenancy, maybe you drop something big that damages the hardwood floors. The security deposit will cover that, but the more people, the more chance for more expensive damage, and you aren’t getting a bigger deposit.
But for a community to thrive and remain inclusive, it has to change—or the alternative, at least in Gibsons, is that we sprawl all the way up the mountainside and cut down all the trees.
And the decision has been sprawl. And that’s not really an alternative, because sprawl is not inclusive and inevitably kills the “thrive” part as well.
I did some rough math about a few months ago, and I’m spending roughly the same on housing+transportation in Vancouver, than I would be in a couple smaller cities in BC.
Ultimately my situation isn’t everyone’s, but staying in the city made sense for me.
Ultimately my situation isn’t everyone’s, but staying in the city made sense for me.
Much more common than you think. For anyone that started renting their place before 2020 and especially if they primarily used transit. The likely increase in rent and getting a car would mean vast majority of mid sized cities in Canada wasn’t going to be any cheaper.
It’s been the same shit since… ever. Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake, etc. It’s almost as if all the talk of reconciliation was just for good public relations.
Almost all desirable towns in BC are the same way. Revelstoke is another example of being a victim of its own success. Growing up I remember it basically being a truck stop off the highway. Now it’s an outdoor playground mecca with housing prices rivaling Kelowna and Victoria.
britishcolumbia
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.