They weighed in months ago back when it was announced and said they were taking a wait and see approach, where if it did cause problems they would defederate, but didn’t want to preemptively do so. Many other instances did defederate already though.
What was it? This list really piques my curiosity but I know it’s better not to look….
The reason all cops are bastards is that it’s incentivized by the police force itself. Cops who speak up about the misbehaviour of other actual bastard cops, are mistreated and even pushed out. This leads to a situation where they will look the other way when shitty cops do shitty cop things, in order to keep their job or feel safe or just not have a terrible time at work. But by looking the other way, they have been corrupted and are a huge part of the problem.
I’m sure logically there are some niche situations where a cop has never faced that choice and hasn’t done anything morally reprehensible themselves, but ACAB is more about the corruption necessitated by the system than the actual day to day conduct of cops who aren’t directly evil. Of course it’s good that someone stops people on murderous rampages, but the system supporting those people is broken in a very dangerous way that lets them also get away with terrible crimes.
If you have a good relationship with your sister-in-law you could ask if she’s ever seen or heard of or suspected any bad behaviour by her fellow officers, and what she did about it?
They definitely have to do the work to be willing to publish something like this. They also did a pretty damn deep dive into the other recently infamous ‘pretendian’ professor in Saskatchewan (Carrie Bourassa).
I agree with you completely. I made my guess because they usually mention if a bear had cubs present during an attack, but it is an oversimplification to say the bear decided to see people that way for sure. All I meant by it is, once a bear is triggered into overcoming that fear or wariness and attacking/killing and possibly eating a human, there is a higher risk of them doing so again (unsurprisingly, if the behaviour was successful from the bear’s perspective).
It is a very arrogant and anthrocentric approach. I don’t condone it but I also don’t expect anything better (such as reducing human encroachment into their territory) because I am rightfully(?) jaded.
Banff is an extremely busy park so unless they are willing to close that trail/bear’s territory to the public, there aren’t a lot of other good options. If the bear has decided people are a threat/food, relocating it would also be difficult and may introduce some liability.
I think the issue has been, while the result is something illegal (and that’s why it’s rightfully being cracked down on), the path to get there is not strictly outlawed. They are paying a subscription service for an amount of general visits, but because the purpose of the visit isn’t outlined prior to the patient requesting them, the visits could be non-essential or elective care - things that doctors are not obligated to provide access to equally or freely. And then they say they will also offer some level of necessary care to non subscribers. But obviously in practice some of those preferred customers will book non essential appointments and deprive the non-payers of spots to even make requests for necessary care.
At least that is how I understood it. It is wrong and Health Canada is responding properly it just wasn’t super direct path to wrongness that makes it easy to point directly to a line in the Health Act - and that’s why these greedy centres tried to get away with this bs in the first place
deleted by creator
They’re basically exploiting a grey area that isn’t specifically outlined as being illegal, but ultimately creates an environment where illegally preferential care could occur. But they say ah but we still provide access one day a week to the general public for necessary care, therefore we are all g - Health Canada is now challenging this approach fortunately.
I’m having the same issue with movies7