Castanet

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... eport.html
Might want to read up on who actually went.

Who went where? The link quotes an American and a Canadian, among others, and indicates that two researchers went to BC's north to research the issue, one Canadian and one American. However, I found nothing to indicate that it was in fact those two women who did the research. So, what is your point? Don't bash Americans cuz one Canadian was there?

The article said two researchers - were there others?

Other researchers? I don't think so. Others quoted in the article? Yes.

j watson wrote:Other researchers? I don't think so. Others quoted in the article? Yes.

I would hesitate to call them "researchers" or even "investigators". Those titles don't belong to those who publish conclusions based on unsubstantiated claims and are hesitant to allow others to examine their work.

Agreed, KL-3.

j watson wrote:Who cares what some watchdog group of imbeciles from NY thinks anyway? What business is it of theirs? How 'bout they deal with NY issues and keep their hypocritical yank noses out of ours.

edited for spelling

apparently there are higher ups in the rcmp who care.
RCMP Chief Supt. Janice Armstrong said in a statement released Wednesday the force is taking the allegations "very seriously," but added it needs more help to investigate further.

"In a written response to a series of questions posed by Human Rights Watch in fall 2012, the RCMP emphasized the seriousness of allegations of police misconduct and that these allegations must be brought forward for proper investigation.

And what else could the RCMP [C/Supt Armstrong] have said other than that the RCMP was taking the allegations seriously? Of course they have to investigate such allegations. The police reaction to these allegations would have been exactly the same had the NY Human Rights people gone to them with their findings as opposed to simultaneously running off to the media to gain publicity for producing allegations by nameless complainants against unnamed officers, while at the same time inferring that such anonymity was necessary due to the bona fide fear of retribution by the police. I guess the NY people's interest was focused on saying what they wanted to say in the media, rather than reporting the alleged crimes and affording the police an opportunity to launch investigations without forewarning the alleged suspects [and the whole world about it. Smells a lot like the "dig for crap" industry. You don't find crap, you don't get funded!

jwatson asked who cares.. I took an excerpt from the report to show him. that is all.

Thanks Cutter. I did read the article. My question was rhetorical.

To every one of the armchair judges who feel it in the interests of justice to publish their 'findings' in the media BEFORE any evidence has been given ... there are countries with dictators at their heads who would welcome your approach ... unfortunately for you Canada and Canadians do NOT support your approach to justice. In Canada guilt or innocence is determined AFTER all of the known evidence has been uncovered and given. Those who have an interest in discrediting the police always put their verdict first ... and similarly inclined less intelligent people listen.