News   Apr 23, 2024
 112     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
 852     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
 289     0 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

Choosing not to vote - and it is a choice - means that you didn’t care enough to affect the outcome.

And, sure, there are always reasons people give for why they don’t vote (it doesn’t matter, all politicians are the same, whatever) - but at the end of the day they didn’t even try to affect the outcome. That’s implicitly a vote for the incumbent in low turnout elections.

Essentially, I agree with this.......but I also think its important to acknowledge that it isn't conscious or intentional by most. Such is the nature of apathy of whatever form. That doesn't make it ok.

I'm just trying to differentiate between those who are actively supportive of one view or even genuinely indifferent, vs those who do not know, or understand what role they can play and how it may matter.

First off, I really appreciate your contributions - and I suspect many fellow posters do as well.

TY; and I know many, many do, I receive many 'likes' and such and lots more positive messages, some public, some private, for which I am quite grateful.

In any group there is always a distribution between the totally disengaged, to the dilettantes, to the truly knowledgeable and engaged. Very few will be at the very engaged end of the spectrum. Also, that distribution varies for every different subject that group encounters. I think it’s unlikely that people will be care, or have an opinion about everything, but I would hope that they have and voice an opinion about at least one - and for the other subjects on which they’re silent, they’re implicitly ok with whatever takes place.

I agree, again, my point in making the comparison between UT and the broader electorate was one of saying that this IS the political class, this IS the engaged group, These ARE the people who broadly care about this, but still, for a lot of different reasons, they are unwilling or unable to be fully engaged on any number of threads.

How then do we expect those who care less about such issues; who are far less informed and knowledgeable to be engaged?

Again, I'm not letting people off the hook; I'm more asking, how do we engage those who have come to conclude the 'system' just doesn't include them?
 
Last edited:
Only the most mentally disciplined can make decisions based on statistics however, the rest of us get by on feelings. People don't anticipate feeling bad from a car accident when they get a license, but I'm sure that many have dreaded the experience of being assaulted (or even just being made uncomfortable) on the subway. Also, given the historical poor treatment of women at the hands of men, I'm sure they are far more likely to experience foreboding and avoidance of the TTC than males. Statistically valid or not versus driving, that's the reality.
Stop with the male bashing.. we get enough of this in the media.
 
Last edited:
The mentally ill zombies walking among us strike again.


The TTC needs to get this in hand.

Update:
As a result of their investigation, a 16-year-old boy, a 15-year-old boy, and a 15-year-old girl are each individually charged with two counts of assault with a weapon, assault of a peace officer while carrying a weapon, two counts of assault, and two counts of fail to comply with undertaking, among other offences.

https://www.cp24.com/news/three-tee...shed-in-the-face-at-spadina-station-1.6273684

Absolutely disgusting.
 
What is it with these kids?? This is like the fourth or fifth incident involving groups of young teens attacking someone. Something is seriously wrong when kids are carrying around weapons like a machete! He's lucky the cop didn't blow his head off.
 

I'm pleased to see that they are arrested and off the street; while I certainly hope they receive a material custodial sentence; no matter how long that may be, they will be out again, be that in a year or in 3-4 years, and as such, I hope they receive serious attention from the mental health system; and serious efforts are made at rehabilitation, all the while seeing that they complete High School.

The last thing we need is this lot getting out and being entirely unemployable, and angrier than ever.

What is it with these kids?? This is like the fourth or fifth incident involving groups of young teens attacking someone. Something is seriously wrong when kids are carrying around weapons like a machete! He's lucky the cop didn't blow his head off.

This past few months has been a strange time in the criminal life of Toronto.

Very fortunately, homicides and shootings remain way down year over year. If the current trend holds in this regard (and may it be so) we'll have the lowest number of homicides and probably shootings in a generation.

Yet, many other 'major crimes' are up significantly, none more than auto theft, but also significant spikes in assaults and robberies, and these are by no means confined to the TTC. Usually one expects to see a correlation between the more violent offenses (homicide/shooting) and the MCI (Major Crime Index) writ large. Not so, in recent months. Most peculiar. Hopefully they will become more aligned by way of the MCI dropping significantly in the months ahead.
 
What is it with these kids?? This is like the fourth or fifth incident involving groups of young teens attacking someone. Something is seriously wrong when kids are carrying around weapons like a machete! He's lucky the cop didn't blow his head off.

They are definitely candidates for corporal punishment, Singaporean style.

AoD
 
People are sling this because our Justice system is a joke. We can’t even deal with run of the mill traffic tickets much less violent crimes. There is no disincentive for crime as law and order are no longer followed.
 
People are sling this because our Justice system is a joke. We can’t even deal with run of the mill traffic tickets much less violent crimes. There is no disincentive for crime as law and order are no longer followed.

When one looks at our violent crime rates, as compared to peer-nations, they are pretty respectable. Certainly higher than some, but lower than many.

I don't think one judges a justice system by how brutal it can be; but rather its effeciveness in suppressing crime.

In that respect, our system, overall, has done an ok job..........certainly, there is room for improvement.

But the idea that we don't punish offenders or that our system is broadly ineffectual is not borne out by the facts.

Lets look for evidence when we have a discussion, rather than emotional supposition.
 
^It seems pretty obvious that “enforcement” of petty offences related to street behaviour has been generally abandoned, and the result of that is being seen.

But since that style of enforcement was as unhelpful as the offenses, in terms of being largely a practice of arbitrary harassment of some groups of people, plus being a huge expenditure of police paperwork and time spent by the judiciary and corrections resources (a misnomer, at that), I don’t see anyone proposing that we go back to that.

I’m not sure that we have found much of a model of street level intervention that is both legally and socially acceptable and constructive. Getting more people off the streets seems like part of the solution (although warehousing society’s population of addicts and mentally ill in more humane venues strikes me as a risk of hiding and burying the problem, not solving it…but one thing at a time perhaps.) (and why do we think that these de-marginalised people will stay home, versus hanging out in public spaces ?)

We have made matters worse by concentrating these issues in certain locations - (safe injection sites, while honourable in theory, has created zones of concentrated misery, for instance) without even basic infrastructure such as public washrooms, let alone the necessary support services. Seems like a bandaid, and an insecure one at that.

I have no solutions to propose but the right strategy is definitely to look forward, not back. And differentiate between constructive criticism of what we are doing versus arguments that it is all misguided and we should go backwards. Keep doing progressive things but demand proof that they actually help, and shift strategy if they don’t.

- Paul
 

BMO removes fees for card payments on public transit across Canada

From link.

Public transit riders across Canada who use a debit card linked to the Bank of Montreal (BMO) to pay their fare won’t have to worry about having this frequent type of transaction counting towards their monthly transaction count limit.

This new ability for unlimited use covers all debit transactions with BMO on public transit, including those made by retail and commercial customers. BMO customers will not have to keep count of their number of transactions on public transit to avoid fees when they go over the limit.
“In this economic environment, we are seeing that significantly fewer Canadians feel they are making real financial progress with particularly steep declines in city centres such as Toronto and Vancouver. This feature will help ease worries about transaction count limit fees and let customers focus on their financial goals and staying on budget,” said Gayle Ramsay, head of everyday banking, segments, and customer growth for BMO, in a statement.

William Keliehor, chief commercial officer of Interac, added: “We welcome BMO’s decision to make transit use easier and more convenient by making all debit transactions free of charge.”

While this capability is nationwide, it will be particularly convenient for public transit riders on the major systems of TransLink in Metro Vancouver — where the Compass system enables debit and credit cards to be tapped on card readers — and on various systems across Greater Toronto. Later this year, the TTC will be the latest system to gain debit and credit card tapping capability on Metrolinx’s Presto devices.
 
^It seems pretty obvious that “enforcement” of petty offences related to street behaviour has been generally abandoned, and the result of that is being seen.

But since that style of enforcement was as unhelpful as the offenses, in terms of being largely a practice of arbitrary harassment of some groups of people, plus being a huge expenditure of police paperwork and time spent by the judiciary and corrections resources (a misnomer, at that), I don’t see anyone proposing that we go back to that.

I’m not sure that we have found much of a model of street level intervention that is both legally and socially acceptable and constructive. Getting more people off the streets seems like part of the solution (although warehousing society’s population of addicts and mentally ill in more humane venues strikes me as a risk of hiding and burying the problem, not solving it…but one thing at a time perhaps.) (and why do we think that these de-marginalised people will stay home, versus hanging out in public spaces ?)

We have made matters worse by concentrating these issues in certain locations - (safe injection sites, while honourable in theory, has created zones of concentrated misery, for instance) without even basic infrastructure such as public washrooms, let alone the necessary support services. Seems like a bandaid, and an insecure one at that.

I have no solutions to propose but the right strategy is definitely to look forward, not back. And differentiate between constructive criticism of what we are doing versus arguments that it is all misguided and we should go backwards. Keep doing progressive things but demand proof that they actually help, and shift strategy if they don’t.

- Paul
I have a simple, but elegant solution. All convicted criminals who are out on parole, must wear highly sophisticated electronic collars everywhere they go. they are not permitted to be out and about after certain hours (that would be a condition of parole). In addition these collars have a unique signature and they cannot be removed without detection. To ensure compliance they will be monitored 24x7 and must be visually checked by a police officer and civilian officer monthly. If a crime is committed, it would be relatively easy to see who perpetrated it. Since 95% of crime is committed by basically the same 5% of re-offenders, this would act both as a deterrent and would be a viable way to enforce compliance. Anyone who violates conditions or re-offends, will be back in. This would include drug users , homeless or juvenile delinquents who target the public. and don't tell me that this technology doesn't exist, because it does. it could work on all cell towers using a sliver of bandwidth. I think something like this would cut crime in half or more right off the top, and would reduce the burden on our court systems - the paper work would be relatively easy. It would also be easy to see if parolee's are hanging out with others parolees. If a parolee really does turn their life around, gets a job and manages not to reenter the life of crime or attacking others, then the cuff comes off. they get their privacy back.
 
I have a simple, but elegant solution. All convicted criminals who are out on parole, must wear highly sophisticated electronic collars everywhere they go. they are not permitted to be out and about after certain hours (that would be a condition of parole). In addition these collars have a unique signature and they cannot be removed without detection. To ensure compliance they will be monitored 24x7 and must be visually checked by a police officer and civilian officer monthly. If a crime is committed, it would be relatively easy to see who perpetrated it. Since 95% of crime is committed by basically the same 5% of re-offenders, this would act both as a deterrent and would be a viable way to enforce compliance. Anyone who violates conditions or re-offends, will be back in. This would include drug users , homeless or juvenile delinquents who target the public. and don't tell me that this technology doesn't exist, because it does. it could work on all cell towers using a sliver of bandwidth. I think something like this would cut crime in half or more right off the top, and would reduce the burden on our court systems - the paper work would be relatively easy. It would also be easy to see if parolee's are hanging out with others parolees. If a parolee really does turn their life around, gets a job and manages not to reenter the life of crime or attacking others, then the cuff comes off. they get their privacy back.

Uhhh

I appreciate the thought, but I don't think you've actually worked out the costs and implications.

On any given day in Canada there are ~ 90,000 people under 'Supervision' (probation, parole etc).
The cost of an electronic ankle bracelet, plus monitoring is ~ $600 per month. That's about 658M per year, nominally.

In practice, it would be much more to achieve the level of scrutiny you wish to apply. Current software for the bracelets only tracks location. It does not track proximity to other offenders, specific locations etc etc.
I can't even put a price tag on that level of scrutiny, but its safe to say you're measuring in the Billions per year.

The notion that the change you have in mind would be 'easy' when I'm not sure its even feasible in the near-term if the money flowed, is not correct.
That also completely ignores any Charter issues that may come into play; and doesn't address the curious problem you may not have anticipated.
That should we achieve the ability to do the above, it would result in release of the majority of people in jail today on remand (held pending trial),
as the argument would go that they are no longer a flight risk. That would in turn drive the cost of the program much higher, probably 100% higher.

****

I'm not suggesting that there isn't some merit to the idea; in fact, I've advocated for the expansion of bracelets as an alternative to remand, because they are cheaper, and err on the side of people retaining greater
freedom who haven't yet been convicted of an offense.

But that is a very big shift, with lots of complexity and cost.

Sources:


 

Back
Top