kudos Rafe

Now, would it be untoward to ask for an update on the latest suit targeting your own good self and the guv'nor of the Tyee?

Be interesting to see if a big plaintiff like CanWest will continue to use its clout to try and hammer a much smaller critic.

A Layperson's Perspective

I didn’t follow the course of Mr. Mair’s case and haven’t read the judgment, but I too am embroiled in onerous litigation that may shortly compel me to apply for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are a number of fundamental differences between Mr. Mair’s situation and mine. I am not a lawyer, and I’ve never had the assistance of any lawyer. I am the plaintiff, alleging what is essentially a conspiracy to obstruct justice, though the pleadings refer to “misfeasance in public office. The defendants include Wally Oppal, who spent 21 years on the bench. Just over a year ago one of Mr. Oppal’s colleagues on the BCSC bench dismissed the case on summary judgement, thereby denying me even the opportunity for discovery. No matter, because I’ve already assembled material evidence quite sufficient to win the case. All I need is a trial, and I believe there is a reasonable prospect that I will get one if I stay the course.

While I have learned a great deal about the legal issues raised by my own case, I must admit I have little appreciation of the law of libel or it’s current impact on society. Interestingly though, I am accusing a number of people of what is clearly criminal wrongdoing and I have said so repeatedly online. No one has threatened to sue me (though I did receive one online death threat – that was quickly erased). This opens up some interesting possibilities. As I learn more about the actual conspiracy – which unfolded over a number of years – and the roles of specific individuals, it appears I can share my findings with the public. If I am denied a trial in the Courts for which we pay through our taxes, I might yet have one in the Court of Public Opinion.

Should anyone be crazy enough to try suing me for telling what I know to be the truth, I would be able to insist on a trial before a jury. I cannot have one in the current action because of a statute denying a jury when the government is a defendant – a statutory provision that our elected representatives could repeal if they suddenly felt an urge to serve the public interest.

The system is engineered in countless ways to deny us access. But, it isn’t soundly engineered, and therefore as its custodians continue to invent new tricks to shut us out, they are merely ensuring that eventually the entire edifice is going to collapse. I suspect that day may not be far off.

The System

The system is designed to inhibit nefarious cases. It is in fact extremely difficult and expensive to prove libel.

That is in your opinion. It obviously wasn't the opinion of the judge. Besides, if you feel there was an error in the judgment of your case, you can go to the BC Court of Appeals. The court deal with this kind of thing all the time an if you don't have solid evidence, you are going to be dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada is a final court of appeal. You would actually have to have a judgment in a lower court and have exhausted all your other appeals first. Even then, the Supreme Court doesn't have to listen to any case it doesn't want to.

In many ways it is but the system is also designed to prevent litigation for unnecessary things.

Shabbaranks

Sez :

".......to suggest that the people in the profession are maintaining their own elitism simply for the purpose of getting paid is just wrong."

I wonder what planet Shabbaranks lives on.

Thanks GWest and Sanamark who wrote b]:[/b]

"As others point out, a good lawyer is, all to often, a good biller - and that's about all."

"Want to see $10,000 evaporate? Give a lawyer a retainer."

To which I'll add an unttributed quote from Paul Watson :

"A lawyer is the larval phase of the politician"

Lawyers, love them, hate them

Lots politicians are lawyers. There is no coincidence in that one.

Over the years, I have had to have the services of a lawyer from time to time. Most of them were real scum, not following instructions, ditching you for clients with more money and charging for the saliva for licking a stamp.

Fortunately, pond scum eat their own. It is called the Law Society. Lawyers live in fear of them. Sure, the Law Society doesn't really do much to rein in lawyers but one complaint with even the slightest validity and the QC or judge appointment will never happen.

If anyone ever has to retain a lawyer, tell him what you want. Ask him your chances of winning and how much it will cost. An honest lawyer will give you a straight reply, "To do this will cost $___ and your chances of winning are ____%" If you get humming and hawing, go see another lawyer.

As for libel cases, or suing a business partner, or trying to sue a public figure, don't even bother. And private prosecution? Forget it!

Let us not forget .....

..... that the defence against libel is "truth".

The problem is for many, they are afraid of the truth!

Grumpy

Ah yes, Grumpy. But what is or is not "the truth" is a very slippery issue, as a few moments on these TYEE threads will prove.

We can only hope that the tests for "truthful" comment that Rafe has outlined will bear positive fruit.

Of one thing you can be dead certain. The lawyers, with their boundless capacity for dissembling, will try to push those tests into areas of logic only they can understand.

Strategic Litigation

Since there is quite a lack of legal representation available to many people, there are a number of people who are learning the legal systems DIY. People are muddling through and the judges are aware of the problems and lack of accessible representation, so they apparently cut people some slack.

In the larger centres there is some help available, Supreme Court Self-help and law libraries. There are some interesting actions taking place these days, mostly people don't know about them. Activists and others are bringing forward strategic litigation on some pretty important issues, such as homelessness, police brutality, violations of privacy laws etc.

Access Justice offers some pro bono clinics around BC:

http://www.accessjustice.ca/public/probono.asp

I also suspect there are a number of actions against the BC government these days, they're spending a lot of our tax dollars defending the indefensible. Here is an interesting class action being brought forward by the BC Government Retired Employees Association:

http://www.bcgrea.com/home.htm

Really indefensible?

I worked in the Victoria Court Registry when I was in university which is why I know a little about this thread. People pursue court action against the government all the time. The great majority of the time these nefarious get tosses but every time somebody files, a lawyer, paid for the tax payer, must prepare a response to the Writ of Summons.

This is nothing new. There are tons of them learning DIY. It is actually not hard to start a suit at all. A Writ of Summons and A Statement of Claim, with supporting Affidavit and a couple hundred bucks and you are away to races. Judges bend over backwards for unrepresented parties, too. When I was working at the registry, one little old lady sued various levels of government constantly. She sued the BC Government claiming she was being shorted on her pension cheque from the civil service. She sued Canada Post for delivering said cheque late.

People would try to get politicians they didn't like using private prosecutions. You know what? If you want to get someone arrested you need some pretty good evidence if that case is going to fly. It is ten times harder if the police think you are a flake with a vendetta against a public figure.

I had a guy on day parole walk in and sue Corrections Canada for bad food. I could go on, but governments have to respond to each and every lunatic nutbar and we all pay for it. It is hardly "indefensible" because if the government doesn't reply, a default judgment is given to the Statement of Claim.

A DIY Experience

Well, it’s interesting that you would share that with us. I would not dismiss your claim that there are many “nefarious” cases being filed. I would suggest however that many of those are brought by well heeled parties represented by high-priced lawyers, so in those instances the pleadings look good.

I’ve initiated two judicial reviews myself – the first of which I won. I’ve also had to defend that success in the Court of Appeal, where I lost. Try picturing this scenario. One self-represented litigant up against counsel for three parties – the Labour Relations Board, the City of Vancouver, and CUPE – the largest union in Canada. All of them in robes. Three judges on the bench – also in robes. That’s six lawyers to one citizen. The appeal was brought by CUPE’s lawyer, so he did most of the talking. His argument was all about “polycentricity”. Feel free to tell us what you think that term means. The judges loved it. I thought they were going to climb over the bar and start kissing him. It was his first time in the Court of Appeal. His sole courtroom experience to that date had been losing to me, so I guess they reckoned he needed the encouragement. (Labour lawyers generally only appear before labour arbitrators and the Board.)

When it was my turn to speak the judges were overtly rude to me. The Honourable Justice Low roused himself from his nap just once in the entire hearing to say, “If you thought the union wasn’t doing a good enough investigation why didn’t you do one yourself?” I won’t get into the conduct of the judge who heard the motion to dismiss my tort action last year. I will say her judgment would warrant a failing grade if it had been submitted by a first year law student. On September 8 another three Court of Appeal judges will hear me critiquing her so-called jurisprudence, which might well be labelled the new made in BC doctrine of absolute immunity (aka bullshit).

I can understand the frustration of people working in court administration, but my impression is that very few of them have any idea of what is really going on in the courtrooms.

the fix

I have an attorney friend in Seattle who gets dozens of replies to craigslist ads for attorneys at $40 hourly. Robert Half legal often advertises for attorney's at $40 an hour. Crown attorneys here make about $40 an hour. Local attorneys fight like the hyenas they are for the rare $90 hourly legal aid cases.

So why is it that a handicapped friend can't find one of the hyenas who would be willing to help her divorce case for less than $250 an hour.

Any answers?

$200k?

First off, congratulations Raif! I may not always agree with your opinions, but I always support your right to voice them.

Second, where the heck did you read that a junior associate or associate will be hauling in $200k/an? Looking out from the tail end of law school, I don't see a salary anywhere near that on the horizon. All I see is a decade worth of student loan payments. I'm not whining about student loan payments - that was my choice. But I certainly don't see $200k. Heck, I don't even see $100k in two or three years.

The reality of the matter is, unless you're a hot-shot student who wants to put in a 65 - 80 hour work week in Toronto or Vancouver, you're lucky to land an articling position that pays in the neighborhood of $45k. And trust me, nobody gets $50k raises a year for their first three years.

Think about that for a minute, 4 years of undergrad, 3 years of law school and you graduate to $45k. Yes, it's our choice to make, but trust me when I say, we're not leading glamorous lifestyles for the first 5 to 10 years of our careers which start after 7 years of school.

easy legals

hum.. so what's it like being a techno iliterate? (lord, i hope i spelt that wrong)

a 100.00 computer, given acces to almost ANY jurimetrics software, gives legal decesions.

correctly, 96% of the time.

at the cost of a phone call.

assuming you can type data in.

we could have a

a cheap, legal and harmless (really) system in place in the 80's...

no one wants it.

packrat

Jabberocky

You are absolutely correct - Rafe is dreaming in techincolor in his suggestion that 200k/year is anything like the pay packet for the vast majority of Law School grads. And I know dozens of young lawyers from all across the country.

$45 to 50k per year for at least the first 3 - 5 years after articles is the norm - and pulling that pay from most established firms requires a lot more than a 40 hour week - including a lot of useless scutwork.

Legal Aid

If your friend is handicapped and makes less than the financial guidelines, she qualifies for Legal Aid. That is $1400 for a single person. I have a lawyer who will work for $150 an hour, so call around.

You don't really need a lawyer for a divorce anyway, regardless of what a lawyer might tell you. Custody is practically always awarded 50-50 now and assets the same.

Several years ago I got involved with a messy divorce. My dear ex-wife had a legal aid lawyer, a young and rather inexperienced woman. There is a limit to what legal aid will do, usually 20 billable hours. After a year of affidavits, claims and counter claims it came down to 50-50. I didn't spend a cent. Doing your own divorce is also easy and the Family Duty Counsel will read over all the papers for you for free.

We knew, we often sat in on proceedings during our lunch breaks.

Universal Legal Coverage

In the current issue of Walrus mag there is an article about; access to legal services, the suggestion of universal coverage, and lawsuits attempting to prove that the high cost of legal fees is an unconstitutional barrier to justice.

Lawyers would love that!

Wow, wouldn't the lawyers love that. The ironic thing is the Legal Services Society is run by and for lawyers and really gives them a short leash. They can't charge the LSS for stamp saliva and "only" get $120 an hour.

Shabbaranks

This is a bit late I know but I've been busy of late. You can fix a leaky toilet just by asking the fellow at your local building supply store and he does not charge for the advice. If you have a few manual skills it should not be that hard. For your spleen that is completely different as a human body is not an inanimate object. The two don't compare.

My point is that the legal system is not complicated to a person with reasonable intelligence. Lawyers are not imbued with a higher intellect and maybe that is why so many enter the political arena. They make more money in politics with average abilities than they would make in the legal field. Give a person who is able to follow steps and is of slightly above average intelligence access to the process and a library and they are better off doing it themselves.

Litigation...

Litigation:

1. Involves military strategy;

2. Court is a crapshoot;

3. Also, on occassion, involves the luck of the draw in terms of the Justice hearing the matter;

Even if ya win... ya lose (legals costs and time consumed).

Once experienced 11 separate actions (7 as Plaintiff) against 5 separate parties.

Won all but 2.

It was brutal but had to be done.

Was it worth it??? I dunno.

Better attempt to settle or mediate instead of buttin' heads.

page 3 of The Province

My friends own a coffee shop. They have the Province lying about so I looked at it (may have been yesterday's paper) There was a picture of Rafe with the words "shock jock" underneath. If a reader took just a cursory glance at the title, as a younger person with no interest in white bearded shock jocks from the stone-age might, he or she might come away believing Rafe was a shock jock. The article went on to explain that Rafe was asking the judgent to be revised not to include those words as a description of Rafe as a radio personality. I would say that the Province is being as nasty as it legally can, Rafe.

"After all, (they can say) we're just reportin' tha news."

On a related note, I was saddened to learn from the article that one can not sue a Supreme Court Judge for defamation of character regarding what he/she says in a decision. A judge can say anything he damn well pleases and call anyone anything he wants in his decision! What utter hogwash.

SharingIsGood

I don't read the Province - though I might have picked up a copy as you did under similar circumstances - but I was wondering if the article had any hint of developments in the case of the publisher of the paper (ie CanWest) vs Mair and Beers/Tyee.

A cone of silence seems to have descended around that case, still one wonders if the cutline under the picture in that paper (and the use of term 'shock jock') might have some 'connection', however loose, to the case mentioned above.

Just an idle query.

All the law requires

Hi Rafe,

I was wondering what you thought of the following phrase from the Supreme Court judgment:

". . .(T)he defamatory imputation that while S would not engage in violence herself she 'would condone violence' by others, is an opinion that could honestly have been expressed on the proved facts by a person prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate in his views. That is all that the law requires."

Regards,
Frank Carroll
journalism instructor
College of the North Atlantic

G West

G West asks:

I don't recall that article saying anything about the Canwest V. Mair/Tyee, G West. As I will never purchase one of those papers, I'd have to look for it in the recycle bin of that restaurant.

Here is a link to the original story in the online version of the tabloid, The Province. Rafe Mair wins libel suit in Surrey gay-book case. By Tobin Dalrymple, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, June 27, 2008
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=e485b1ab-d0a9-4434-82a1-1d4b78813925

They used "Shock Jock" in quotations early on in the June 27 article as well. The games they play!

Shock Jock or Showman

I'd say “Shock Jock” is fair comment. Or it's unfair comment. Either way it doesn't matter.

One cannot help but admire Mr. Mair's pugnacity. He puts Rocky Balboa to shame. But this particular fight seems to be over. The officials and refs have left the arena. Now some of the fans retire with the champ to the bar across the street – the Tyee – to relive every moment.

If Rafe is not exactly a shock jock, he sure is one hell of a showman.

Canwest haters

Why are you looking in Canwest newspapers for info on this Mair/Tyee legal situation?

Why don't you just ask the Tyee? Or Rafe. If the answer is they can't comment b/c its working its way through proceedings then that would apply to Canwest too, wouldn't it. Somehow I don't see a conspiracy here as some seem to.

And to the posters who wouldn't buy a Canwest "rag" but read it online - WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? You either read Canwest or you don't.

I'm willing to bet my dinner there are a "few" of you who read the front page of the Sun today. Care to come clean?

the difference

About $1.25 a day IIRC.

300 days without a paper and you could almost pay for a day at Whistler! :-)

What's the difference, Happy?

Like Stump says: $1.25 per day (of my money that Canwest will never get). I do, however, buy local (non-CanWest) papers and donate to the Tyee.

Also important to note: I peruse the Canwest papers, not so much for the news (which I rarely trust); but to see what they are attempting to feed to the public. I read them (and even watch Global News, at times) to monitor their activities and reporting (which I consider to be scandalously slanted and inept). These are my opinions - and I am not expecting people to trust me any more than i trust CanWest.

OK SIG

Then what do you have to say about the scandulously slanted and inept (your words) front page story in the Sun today?

How does crow taste? Like chicken?

At least Stump has a goal to shoot for.

Sun - haven't read today's

OK, Happy,
I'll check online to see what the Sun has to say for today.

online edition

Today's Vancouver Sun's online edition headline currently reads:

I don't think that is what you are talking about... I'll look for some other item that may have made the front page.

SIG

May have been morning edition only - NDP up, Libs down

front page - Happy

I think I fount it when I clicked on "news". I think you may be referring to the poll about the NDP being ahead of the BC Liberals. Well, you know me... anyone but Campbell. So that is good news!

I think its being posted is a rally for the troops. It must be time to put some worry on real estate developers and Deputy Ministers to get busy because they know what side their bread is buttered on. They also know that it is time once again for a cyclic capitalistic downturn in the economy, so it is best to get the NDP in so they can reide out the poor economy like they did the last time. Then the BC NDP can be blamed, once again, for world commodity market forces tering up the BC economy. Better the NDP get stuck with trying to clean up the Down and out East Side for the Olympics and with having to make the first installment on everything that has been borrowed for or pushed into P3s. Yep, the Bridge is too costly for a really struggling economy too, so if they get in, the NDP will look inept if it isn't built. I can just read the future headlines now.

Can you imagine what the place will look like if the mismanaging Liberals have to ride out the economic storm that is now really begining to boil? We know that they can't get away without a raise in the minimum wage after what they have given to themselves and their favourite bootlicks. If the Liberals get in, their won't be anything left.

NDP in the polls doesn't taste like chicken to me. I think all of us are going to be stuck with turnips, rice, beans and potatoes.

SIG

Where do you come up with this stuff.

According to you this is a neocon conspiracy for the NDP to win the next election so they can then be blamed for whatever follows. Check. Was that what happened with Glen? Lets go with your conspiracy theory and say he was a setup by the neocons to screw everything up to embarress the NDP.

Well, they succeeded brilliantly didn't they.

And Caoloe's the next dupe huh.

Have at me, gotta go folks.

A poll?

Just another chance for Carole to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? I wouldn't get too excited./

Maybe

Seems to me, happy, that SIG is playing you like a flounder. You're the guy who avoids actually dealing with the CEO's shortcomings by blaming everything on the fast ferries and Glen Clark's deck, remember?

Funny thing though, cause Skywalker is dead on about Carole James.

A good friend of mine walked into her constituency office last week to volunteer her services; she even had her full resume that listed, among her professional qualifications, her experience as a volunteer in several elections working for Andrew Petter's campaign.

The staff treated her as if she had arrived from Mars and sent her away without taking either her details or keeping a copy of her resume.

A competent leader should be able to beat this utter disaster of a CEO premier with her hands tied behind her back...Carole James seems determined to try to do that literally, instead of metaphorically.

Sad.

I have to agree with you, GWest

The last election, a tea cozy should have beaten Gordon Campbell. A toast rack. Anything, really. But Carole James ran such a bad campaign that she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The NDP, for all its talk of "inclusiveness," is anything but. To get near them, you have to have the correct credentials, usually being associated with a public sector union and/or having the correct left wing ideology, the more radical the better. The Liberals, on the other hand, will take anybody who is against the NDP. If a caveman said he'd burn his own gas and supply his own nails to hammer up signs, they'll sign 'em up. On election night there'll be plenty 'o free beer for all and then a big dinner a couple of months later.

Campbell just did a bunch of unpopular things, namely the carbon tax and the deputy minister pay hikes. The timing was not a coincidence, these acts were in summer, a year before the election to minimise the fall out. Gas prices will fall now and the heat will lessen. The government has a huge advantage going into an election in that it can spend money and advertise to beat the band. The Liberals will do this.

The NDP has to dump leaders who do not win; how long did they keep Dave Barrett around?

I liked him

Dave Barrett was what you call a good and decent man. Some of the best things about BC are because of Dave Barrett:

The Agricultural Land Reserve

Welfare Reforms

Created BC's Labour Relations Board

Question Period in the legislature

Hansard

ICBC

....and Barrett was actually available to answer questions in scrums.

Damn right Lynn

Dave Barrett was a mensch; he still is.

As for the suggestion that you have to be a union member to be influential in the NDP: It's a myth.

Part of their problem is a lack of professionalism and training. The other real problem is lack of funds and a fundamental appreciation that you have to answer your emails and pay attention to what people are saying to and about you.

Even so, one cannot underestimate the wreckage that 2001 wrought in the party. Not only were they down to two members in the house, they lost all but two of their research staff.

Carole James's NDP is still recovering from that and, for anyone who cares to look at it, compare the size of the two parties' war chests...Campbell’s corporate enablers give him limitless supply of cash - the NDP has almost none.

That said, the biggest impediment to the NDP winning the next election is a bought and paid for biased media.

If Glen Clark had flown to Asia in a private jet with a supporter and financial backer, to attend to business as the premier - as Campbell has just done can you imagine the kind of nuclear reaction that would have engendered in every Can West paper and Global TV channel?

The CEO did just that...and the media haven't even hiccupped.

We need a hundred thousand people in the streets waving 'down with Campbell' signs to merit a mention in the Vancouver SUN.

GWest

Sad, but true, Garth. But on the hopeful side, I keep meeting otherwise apolitical people who are plenty PO'd with Campbell, esp his incredibly arrogance in giving those raises to is friends.

Hopefully, they'll remember when they vote.

NDP nearly bled to death

.
Judi Tyabji Wilson's book, Daggers Unsheathed, the Political Assassination of Glen Clark provides the explanation of why the BC New Democrats have no money.

The Campbell campaign strategy included pressing a series of legal attacks on the NDP party itself ... which incurred hefty legal bills having to respond to those spurious attacks. Clever. Legal. But nasty.

Campbell seems to sully everything he touches, including the name Liberal which now means anything from Socred to Reform to Alliance to some sort of "BC Liberal" with a bit of CCRAP added along the way.

Excellent points BC Mary

Funnily enough, as ME2 noted just above you, it seems that more and more ordinary British Columbians, having seen the Campbell kleptocracy in action time and again, are finally getting the picture - despite the fawning and incomprehensible silence of the media.

The image of a green-washed Gordo splashing like Scrooge McDuck in his own private money-pit while he pretends to care about the environment, flies carbon-heavy and ethically compromised to Beijing, passes a money-laundering Rube Goldberg carbon tax while selling oil and gas leases like a cash crazed Texan is getting through to the average hard working British Columbian.

Did you hear his new cabinet minister Mary Polack pooh-pooh the advice of numerous medical authorities about the dangerous practice of feeding deli meats to hospital patients? It was a classic.

These people fairly revel in their ignorance.

His days may be numbered. Folks are tired of Panglossian spin and self-important profligacy. This is not the ‘best place on earth’ and certainly not the best of all possible times.

It was about Canwest West

I've never once mentioned Glen's deck West, and no need for you to constantly reopen old wounds over ferries. As I said before, that story's been written. Overweight and underpowered. Get past it.

As for being played like a flounder, the discussion was about Canwest media, not Carole, or Gordo for that matter. SIG insinuated the bad news(for the Libs)in the Sun yesterday was part of a larger "conspiracy" to get the NDP back into power so thay can take the flack post Olympics. I had a little trouble with that line of thinking, so I said so.

Do YOU believe that? That the Libs would lose an election on purpose? Please.

Get past it.

Excellent advice for you happy...

My opinion of you and your method of argumentation hasn't changed.

I don't believe Gordon Campbell will voluntarily give up the power he got by illegitimate means so no, I don't think the CEO will be throwing the election.

However, whatever gets rid of the blight he's thrown over the province is fine with me.

As for not mentioning Clark's deck - sorry if I offended you - maybe you didn't; the Neocon characters around here have mentioned it so often it seems to have become a universal theme.

I take it you don't dispute the constant nattering about the fast ferries?

More to the point, your modus operandi was, I'm sure you'd not attempt to claim otherwise, an effort to embarrass me over my less than effusive praise for pee wee Harper.

Remember?

I think, were we looking to motives, that's pretty much all you do.

Fair enough?

"Overweight and underpowered."?

They could do almost 40 knots carrying a payload of 550 deadweight tonnes. I don't think Overweight and underpowered was the reason. Look elsewhere and the outcome of that search may still prove relevant today.

Wrong Skywalker

What happened whenever they went at that speed? They blew a drive, thats what. Or they cooked as turbo on the Deisels. Because they were being pushed too hard. Why. Because they were the wrong choice of powerplant. The Engineers wanted Gas Turbines but were overuled by the Premiers office due to costs balooning before the first piece of aluminum was cut.

Stick to what you know

West

I didn't say a peep when you came out with that lame "I just forgot"

Who's trying to enbarrass who?

Why is it lame to 'forget'?

The whole point, remember, was that sanmark claimed I only posted negative things - which is clearly untrue - and I gave him an example, which realisticman, grudgingly, affirmed.

The fact of the matter is that I also gave pee wee a positive review for saving McDonald Detwiler (after having posted a comment which made my position clear 'before' the decision was made)

You can go back and check if you like.

Now, as I said, was there anything positive, has there ever been anything positive about anything you've posted here at Tyee?

I think it's a fair question, given the circumstances, don't you?

Yes

I said I liked Harcourt. I said he did a competent job as Mayor and likely would have as Premier too, had he been left to his own devices.

You can go back and check if you like.

Fair enough for you?

Stick to what you know, Happy?

They were new and never got the bugs worked out. All the problems could have been corrected and you don't run an engine at top speed all the time anyway. Even the ferries that they have bought recently all have problems during the "break in" period. Stick to what you know! Look elsewhere at the politics.

They weren't "bugs"

It was a fundamental design flaw. You can't "correct" an underpowered engine. The high speed diesels that were installed over the objections of the Engineers who designed the boats weighed twice as much as the gas turbines originally planned. Hence the overweight.

They didn't have the horsepower of the turbines. Hence the underpower.

You got one thing right. There were politics alright. From the Premiers office who thought they knew more than the Marine Engineers.

I AM sticking to what I know.

So it's lame to forget

I'll remember that happy. And no, I don't remember any praise from you for Harcourt either. Maybe Frank does, he's been around here a lot longer than I have so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As to what you 'know', from an anonymous poster that's actually pretty funny.

If we are going to be off topic,

Let's get more current:

$400,000,000 in over-runs and counting:
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id24893

Cost over-runs of Olympic proportions:
http://www.2010watch.com/

Anonymous, so what

What does that have to do intelligent discussion of a topic.

The vast majority of posters use handles. Do you dismiss Skywalker and Sharing Is Good comments as "pretty funny"?

We've been down this road before. If you can dispute my technical opinion then by all means lets hear it.
But you can't. So you resort to your usual condecending putdowns. As someone might say "sad really"

congratulations rafe. never

congratulations rafe.

never thought i would be grateful for the efforts of a socred.

hope you the tyee fare as well against the forces set upon you by the corporate megalith of globalist evil...

Happy

Not a single article on the ferries mentions what you claim is "technical" information. Wash was a problem because they went to fast. They used too much fuel, were designed for a specific ocean condition like the Mediteranean and so on. Politics played a role but it was also the politics of the opposition which greatly exaggerated the issue to their advantage. Enough said!

Not at all

Opinions are fine and dandy - you aren't delivering opinions happy, you're claiming to be a technical 'expert' and you've done it time and 'agin. Whether it's about ferries or airplane maintenance doesn't matter - you're the 'expert'.

The point is that a technical expert who claims to have the answers you suggest you do isn't worth bothering with unless his name and qualifications are on display.

That's why I have to hire an engineer to stamp some of my working drawings - he's willing to put his professional credentials on the line.

Spin your opinions all you like - but recognize that claiming some technical prowess as an anonymous poster is just lame (another word you're not too big to use I see, along with 'forgot').

So, in terms of put downs, I certainly would never claim to be in your league in that category. But then, I try to be interested in something besides that.

Just today you've delivered, how many was it? 2, 3....let me check.

Enough said: I'm happy to have an intelligent discussion with anyone - let me know when you're similarly interested.

Thats true Skywalker

Thank you for bringing that point up - they used too much fuel. Because - the underpowered engines were ran at near max power in order to attain their design speed which was their whole reason for being built in the first place. Speed.

Turbines can run at full speed constantly if needed, reciprocating engines like deisels, can't.

The fuel consumption was THE major reason they were pulled from service. They were using way more fuel than an old double ender and couldn't carry as much. They were bleeding BC Ferries dry. The reliability was a secondary issue, many still cling to the belef that could have been resolved. Not without a powerplant replacement and that wasn't economically feasable. You may as well build a brand new boat.

And if you don't believe any of this I offer Exhibit A. Why, when they were bought cheap for scrap value, can't Washington Marine Group find a use for them? Anywhere in the world. Why can't they resell them?

Yes, enough said

Stll waiting for the "technical" information

Can't let that bit of gas go by without responding. Nowhere can I find any comment that they were underpowered and over weight. They were modeled after those being built in Europe. Their only failing was that they required long distances of calm water. In any event the 450 million lost has long been surpassed by the loss in taxes on wages by Campbell when he had the new ferries built with labour in Europe. There were even studies done to suggest that the ferries could have been run at half speed with half the engines and slight modifications to accommodate the change in trim. It was politics that that prevented any salvaging of the investment. Very politically convenient for Campbell.

Are you also the guy who said they wouldn't float?

Sigh. From the Auditor Generals report...

❸" Power: the ferries required power levels at or beyond the
maximum available from diesel engines at the time (and
there was a decision made not to use higher-power gas
turbine engines)"

"Fuel: It was always expected that fuel cost would be higher
for fast ferries than conventional ships. However, the level of
extra cost was underestimated; current indications are that the
annual fuel cost of fast ferries will be twice that of the existing
service. One reason is the greater weight of the ships. The
heavier a fast ferry, the more fuel is required to move it through
the water and the harder its engines will have to work. The
JJMA report concluded that the first ferry is approximately 50
tonnes above the weight that was originally calculated as being
the maximum tolerable for the desired performance"

Satisfied yet folks? Wrong engines, over 50 tonnes heavier than planned. Theres plenty more FACTS in that report that, gosh, agree completly with what I've been saying. But, as some would have it, what the hell do I know. Are we done yet?

A bit selective are we Happy.

From the JJMA Report the executive summary says, ”In brief we concur with the KMM and the CFI conclusions that such conversions are feasible.” Those were the conversions to run them at half speed with two less engines cutting fuel cost by about half and eliminating the wash problem. It is the top end of the engines rpms. that have the high costs. You are a might selective in your facts and therefore your conclusions are a bit flawed. That tactic does not make one an expert. Now we are done!

Skywalker

Then why doesn't Washington Marine Group do it and sell them for a big profit?

I never said modifications couldn't be done, I said it wasn't economically feasable, and it obviously wasn't. Why wouldn't that have been done when the NDP was in charge? Who was it that pulled them from service? It was BC Ferries themselves when it was a Crown Corporation under the NDP's thumb. Not Gordo.

Sure, you could spend millions to remove two engines and drives and run them at half speed. Crew costs are still the same. Or, you can cut your losses and put those same millions into buying the ferries that the Corporation wanted to start with, that will last for at least 40 years with much lower operating costs and, hell what a bonus, will carry more cars therefore less line ups at the Terminals.

When looked at objectively most would agree the sensible decision was made. Most

Nice exchange of opinions.

Presented with an appreciated paucity of alleged technical expertise.

I'm with Skywalker on the verdict so I guess we'd say most (2 out of 3 in any case) disagree with the political handling of the issue.

Now perhaps we can move along to the abysmal record of the current government. Or, if someone prefers, let’s have a discussion about the 'objectivity' of news sources who are also MAJOR contributors to the BC Liberal political party.

Where should we start?

Yes, my opinion

It seems to go hand in hand with George Morfitt's extensive report on the fiasco West. Why don't you read it.

I guess in your world he's "compromised" too. How else to explain it?

You and Skywalker can have the rest of the thread to yourselves. You win. I have a ferry to catch.

ancient history

Let's get current.
Let's end thsi thread by talking about what a mess this province is in after 8 years of Campbell during unprecidented profits in the mining and forestry sectors. Highland Valley copper has been able to turn a profit for years when copper sat below $1 a pound. Copper has been above a buck for 5 years now, and it has averaged $3.50 for more than 2 years now! It's the same with the rest of the mining sectors. Forestry also enjoyed unheard of profits from 2000 through 2006. None of that money comes back for the rainy day though. Campbells forestry buddies (Liberal campaign donators) take their money and run - and get permission to sell the forstry land for development while they are at it.

I've read it -

And I read the report Skywalker cited as well.

That's why I discount:
a) your opinion - which of course you're entitled to; and
b) entitled to your conclusion which of course is ‘personal’ and far from only one possible; but
c) as long as it’s not predicated on your unsubstantiated ‘scientific’ and technical prowess, which, without that seal I just don’t accept….remember?
That’s what intelligent discussion, free of put downs, cheap shots and characterized by respect for your interlocutor.

I wonder if you've read the current auditor general's report on the Forest Industry and particularly the Western Forest Products/Rick Coleman debacle.
I wonder if you've looked at the report released today on surgical services in the interior health authority. I believe he found there was a lack of clear direction, a lack of integrated human resource planning and poorly defined roles and accountabilities.
It is, as Sharing points out, time to get a little more current.

As for George Morfitt: I don't know if he's compromised or not. You did know he’s been retired for some time didn’t you?

As for respecting auditor's reports - pls refer to Pat Bell's reaction to the one on the forest industry. Would you call that reaction compromised - or just stupid?

Now, about Can West - could we get that intelligent discussion going, please?