General Retail News

[plam]

I think it'll just be "MEC" now without any significance to the letters. Or else something like "Mountain Equipment Company".

As to selling it ... MEC was sold through CCAA, and there is rarely anything left for the owners (of any company) at that point.

Last week there was a mail sent to members (finally). It will be "MEC Canada" with the old coop taking a numbered name and having no assets. Essentially it was a bankruptcy sale. Execution over the past few years wasn't so good

[ijmorlan]

In general, I will trust our judiciary in this regard, that they understand the laws, study the particulars of each case and make well-reasoned decisions.

I think in our country we have a pretty good judiciary.

My problem is that I don’t really know. The difference between me and your typical RWNJ (right wing nut job) is that I know that I don't really know; I can invent scenarios where I think we should be lenient, and others where I think we should be harsh, but I admit that I don’t actually know how often scenarios like the ones I invent actually are.

Here’s an example where I feel comfortable saying that the perpetrator should definitely be locked up pending trial:

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/man-wi...rivingflex

It’s obvious that violating a lifetime driving ban multiple times should result in exponentially increasing custodial sentences; it should not be possible within a normal human lifespan to be given 8 lifetime bans from driving.

The purpose of bail is to keep innocent people out of prison. But in this case, there are only 2 facts to be established: (1) the person the police arrested was driving and (2) they had a lifetime driving ban. If both of these are true the person should be doing time; otherwise a lifetime driving ban is meaningless, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Both of these should be able to be established with enough certainty to justify holding the person for a few weeks until the full trial can be held.

Side note: nobody should even have multiple lifetime driving bans at the same time. There should only be one, with each violation punished by an exponentially increasing prison sentence; or, since it is clearly insane to keep driving when the penalty for the next offence is, say, 10 or 20 years, maybe the offender should be held in a mental facility instead. I don’t actually believe in “punishment” as such, but rather in removing from the general population people who are dangerous (e.g. murderers) or whose actions would cause our society to stop functioning (e.g. shoplifters).

[danbrotherston]

I think in our country we have a pretty good judiciary.

My problem is that I don’t really know. The difference between me and your typical RWNJ (right wing nut job) is that I know that I don't really know; I can invent scenarios where I think we should be lenient, and others where I think we should be harsh, but I admit that I don’t actually know how often scenarios like the ones I invent actually are.

Here’s an example where I feel comfortable saying that the perpetrator should definitely be locked up pending trial:

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/man-wi...rivingflex

It’s obvious that violating a lifetime driving ban multiple times should result in exponentially increasing custodial sentences; it should not be possible within a normal human lifespan to be given 8 lifetime bans from driving.

The purpose of bail is to keep innocent people out of prison. But in this case, there are only 2 facts to be established: (1) the person the police arrested was driving and (2) they had a lifetime driving ban. If both of these are true the person should be doing time; otherwise a lifetime driving ban is meaningless, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Both of these should be able to be established with enough certainty to justify holding the person for a few weeks until the full trial can be held.

Side note: nobody should even have multiple lifetime driving bans at the same time. There should only be one, with each violation punished by an exponentially increasing prison sentence; or, since it is clearly insane to keep driving when the penalty for the next offence is, say, 10 or 20 years, maybe the offender should be held in a mental facility instead. I don’t actually believe in “punishment” as such, but rather in removing from the general population people who are dangerous (e.g. murderers) or whose actions would cause our society to stop functioning (e.g. shoplifters).

I mean, I'm not going to disagree with that, but I will fully admit I am quite biased. I think our enforcement of all forms of driving offenses is ridiculously lax.

[panamaniac]

I think in our country we have a pretty good judiciary.

My problem is that I don’t really know. The difference between me and your typical RWNJ (right wing nut job) is that I know that I don't really know; I can invent scenarios where I think we should be lenient, and others where I think we should be harsh, but I admit that I don’t actually know how often scenarios like the ones I invent actually are.

Here’s an example where I feel comfortable saying that the perpetrator should definitely be locked up pending trial:

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/man-wi...rivingflex 

It’s obvious that violating a lifetime driving ban multiple times should result in exponentially increasing custodial sentencues; it should not be possible within a normal human lifespan to be given 8 lifetime bans from driving.

The purpose of bail is to keep innocent people out of prison. But in this case, there are only 2 facts to be established: (1) the person the police arrested was driving and (2) they had a lifetime driving ban. If both of these are true the person should be doing time; otherwise a lifetime driving ban is meaningless, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Both of these should be able to be established with enough certainty to justify holding the person for a few weeks until the full trial can be held.

Side note: nobody should even have multiple lifetime driving bans at the same time. There should only be one, with each violation punished by an exponentially increasing prison sentence; or, since it is clearly insane to keep driving when the penalty for the next offence is, say, 10 or 20 years, maybe the offender should be held in a mental facility instead. I don’t actually believe in “punishment” as such, but rather in removing from the general population people who are dangerous (e.g. murderers) or whose actions would cause our society to stop functioning (e.g. shoplifters).

No, the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant pitches up for trial.  Added bonus, they aren't cluttering up the jails at public expense.

[danbrotherston]

Here’s an example where I feel comfortable saying that the perpetrator should definitely be locked up pending trial:

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/man-wi...rivingflex 

It’s obvious that violating a lifetime driving ban multiple times should result in exponentially increasing custodial sentencues; it should not be possible within a normal human lifespan to be given 8 lifetime bans from driving.

The purpose of bail is to keep innocent people out of prison. But in this case, there are only 2 facts to be established: (1) the person the police arrested was driving and (2) they had a lifetime driving ban. If both of these are true the person should be doing time; otherwise a lifetime driving ban is meaningless, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Both of these should be able to be established with enough certainty to justify holding the person for a few weeks until the full trial can be held.

Side note: nobody should even have multiple lifetime driving bans at the same time. There should only be one, with each violation punished by an exponentially increasing prison sentence; or, since it is clearly insane to keep driving when the penalty for the next offence is, say, 10 or 20 years, maybe the offender should be held in a mental facility instead. I don’t actually believe in “punishment” as such, but rather in removing from the general population people who are dangerous (e.g. murderers) or whose actions would cause our society to stop functioning (e.g. shoplifters).

No, the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant pitches up for trial.  Added bonus, they aren't cluttering up the jails at public expense.

The purpose of the restrictions placed on a defandant is to ensure they comply with the judicial process (i.e., show up for court).

The purpose of releasing a defendant instead of just holding them in prison is to ensure we are not locking up innocent people.

The word bail, as far as I can tell, applies to both of these things.

[panamaniac]

No, the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant pitches up for trial.  Added bonus, they aren't cluttering up the jails at public expense.

The purpose of the restrictions placed on a defandant is to ensure they comply with the judicial process (i.e., show up for court).

The purpose of releasing a defendant instead of just holding them in prison is to ensure we are not locking up innocent people.

The word bail, as far as I can tell, applies to both of these things.

They are all innocent until they are convicted.

[jeffster]

[quote='ijmorlan' pid='85901' dateline='1604859253']
No, the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant pitches up for trial.  Added bonus, they aren't cluttering up the jails at public expense.

To add accuracy to this, bail is to keep rich people and the extremely poor people out of jail. Plot twist: some of these poor people actually want to be in jail, as it's an alternative to the street life.

Both the rich and extremely poor have access to lawyers. Anyone earning more than $12,000 and less than $100,000 likely is on their own. If the higher income earner has good credit, there is always that.

Our system is designed to keep the judicial system running at all times. That is, a robust police service, wealthy lawyers, public lawyers and judges on the public dime, and a prison system that provides employment opportunities with good wages.

What are system does not do: It does not keep potentially dangerous people out of jail (awaiting trial) IF income criteria is met. It does not rehabilitate convicts. It creates convicts out of generally decent individuals (those with middling incomes).

Our entire system needs reform. But this will never happen, as you need to follow the money trail. Our system is broken when we see things like this:

1) Someone who kills a spouse or child making bail vs someone that stole something from Toy-R-Us spending 1 year in jail, awaiting trial, to be given a sentence of 'time served'.
2) A transit driver, while off the job, gets s DUI. They get a criminal conviction. Licence suspension. They are a risk to public because of one mistake (in their own car), and lose their job vs a police officer that was high on weed and drunk, after smoking weed and drinking with his other police officer colleagues, will get a conditional discharge, meaning, if they behave for one year, no criminal record, no conviction, no job loss.
3) A repeat sex offender that still makes bail, eventually killing their next victim, vs a repeat offender that doesn't make bail, because they walking on someones flower garden (for real).
4) White collar criminals, they steal millions from their victims, if they get a sentence at all, it's very short, versus someone that robs a bank of $5,000, and sees 10 years.
5) Some sets fire to a shed, in the backyard, causing $1,000 damage, doesn't make bail, careless disregard for human life (even though no humans even close to shed) sits in jail for 1 year awaiting trial, vs someone that causing millions in damage, could have killed people, yet makes bail right away.

Our system is so broken. We failed.

[tomh009]

OK, I think this is enough for this discussion. I'll move it somewhere else once I figure out where that "somewhere else" ought to be.

[bgb_ca]

Bridgeport Walmart has reopened. One nice thing I noticed was during their downtime they upgraded the POS terminals to include tap to pay.

[jwilliamson]

This is one way to build a fence.

   

[KevinL]

The TD branch at Forest Glen will close next June; accounts will be consolidated to the Fairway/Manitou locaton.

[dtkvictim]

Forgot to post this when I still remembered the name, but there is a vintage clothing pop-up shop at 157 King St W (At least I think. The unit next to Double Double where the Green party office was).

[Chris]

The long time independent gas station at the corner of Guelph and Margaret has started it's transformation into an Esso / Mobil. A sign went up in June/July timeframe. Work on the tanks and lot started in December and I noticed today that the renovations of the garage into a variety store started recently.

[EdM]

Sad news, it seems streaming and the pandemic were too much for Far Out Flicks 

"The brick and mortar store will be gone by the end of the year."
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/end-...-1.5343631

[Acitta]

Sad news, it seems streaming and the pandemic were too much for Far Out Flicks 

"The brick and mortar store will be gone by the end of the year."
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/end-...-1.5343631

I am surprised that it lasted this long. A few years ago, I won a prize pack at the Kitchener Blues Festival that included a free rental from them but I never bothered to use it.