Search results

Are you suggesting that telling boys and young men that they are the problem, because of things that happened a hundred years before they were born, might drive some to radicalization? It's impossible that implying, and sometimes outright saying, men/boys are unnecessary might inspire them to...

It's grim for many reasons, that's just a tiny part of the problem.

Except, there is little political will to do that. There is an obvious need to get more serious about defence, but burning that sort of political capital on defence is beyond reasonable at this stage. Let's not forget the LPC is a minority government, and any major swing in opinion could see...

I suspect the provision would be used to deal with slumlords who knowingly allow dealers to operate out of their units, rather than as a way to go after landlords who accidently end up renting a unit to a dealer. I'm guessing the bar for "knowingly" will be fairly high.

Yeah.... That's a weird angle to approach this from. Government, like all other employers, should be looking to hire the best for the job, not hiring the "well, we'd have to pay for them anyway" crowd. Also, it's pretty disrespectful to people with disabilities to reduce them to being a...

Its funny that a magazine named Esprit De Corps fails to realize that activities like that build esprit de corps.

The simple answer is that there are far more people above them that can enforce the rules.

Is a lack of new posts in that group proof of a change? Why presume when you can officially record that they are changed? RM don't need to run for six months. You could have a shorter reporting period to lessen the burden on the CoC. This is the more interesting part. Because of the age if the...

I think 4.7 (a) covers how it could be applied in these cases. A RM would be an very offical way of letting a member know their conduct, though in the past, is deficient compared to CAF standards in effect at that time. Applying new standards to past conduct would be wrong, but recording and...

The fact it came to light "today" means it needs to be dealt with "today". I'm quite comfortable with someone needing to wait a few extra months for a CT if they posted terrible things 6 years ago. If the member is serious about owning their behavior, and showing they are changed, they should be...

I can see it being a fairly easy and defensible RM. Making it an RM puts it officially on their pers file, in the event that something similar comes up again. If the member has grown since the time of posting questionable material, meeting the monthly objectives should be quite easy.

Its also quite possible the unit did the right thing, but the CAF is now embarrassed, so someone has to pay. None of us know for sure, so let's see what comes of the current investigation.

I suspect that merely being a member won't be enough to see anything happen. People join FB groups, then never participate or even see the posts. I'm guessing the active participants will be the ones to see remedial measure or charges, and the rest might get a "you should know better".

I suspect the Chief didn't say there was a CDS slush fund, but someone interpreted what was said in that way. Remember, because the topic is emotionally charged right now, people will interpret things in a way that makes them feel how they want to feel. In this case... angry. People will...

That's the nature of speculation and rumor. Be super skeptical of all rumor and 90% announcements, unless they are very specific.

Tannerite or some kind of homemade pipe bomb is my guess. Like Kevin, I'm unimpressed by the firearms overall. Looked like a lot of basic long guns, and a few pistols, some of which I suspect are .22LR. The guys liked their tacticool kit, so I'm guessing a lot is more show than go.

They may also just really like firearms... Not to say they're good guys, but it's not unheard of for people who really like something to own lots of that something. I'm sure some members of this forum have collections not much smaller.

Are they Res F AESOPs, or Res F Air NCMs who happen to be AESOP qualified? I ask because the "Met Techs" in the Res F are all Air General NCMs, who have Reg F Met Tech quals from when they were Reg F.

Short answer, no. Maybe the RM could be escalated to a higher level based on higher level review, but otherwise, you only get punished once for a behaviour.

In fairness, "Verbal Warning" was the common terminology used for IC when I joined, up until about 10-15 years ago. In the same way that people still call a summary hearing a summary trial, despite the rules having changed a couple of years ago.