Western Expresso

[rrskylar]

Just how thick is Coun. Vivian Santos. sometimes you keep your mouth shut and move on after her removal from the police board after failing a security check.

The more we hear the more we know why, which all seems lost on Santos!

[Biff]

I shook my head at that information last night as well. Personally knowing a drug dealer (not just a guy who had access to a joint either) and letting them drive your Benz would lead me to believe that you shouldn't be on the police board. She is losing credibility when she says that she and her husband didn't know that he was a drug dealer and have since severed all ties with the individual. I find that very hard to believe.

[drew]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Just how thick is Coun. Vivian Santos. sometimes you keep your mouth shut and move on after her removal from the police board after failing a security check.

The more we hear the more we know why, which all seems lost on Santos!

Regardless of her particular situation - the process has brought to light how the WPS has final say in who becomes a member of this oversight Board (via the secretive security checks). That in itself is problematic, and if nothing else, it should be changed to ensure that an independent 3rd party (RCMP) conducts the security checks.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by drew

Regardless of her particular situation - the process has brought to light how the WPS has final say in who becomes a member of this oversight Board (via the secretive security checks). That in itself is problematic, and if nothing else, it should be changed to ensure that an independent 3rd party (RCMP) conducts the security checks.

I agree with you here^^^

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Biff

I shook my head at that information last night as well. Personally knowing a drug dealer (not just a guy who had access to a joint either) and letting them drive your Benz would lead me to believe that you shouldn't be on the police board. She is losing credibility when she says that she and her husband didn't know that he was a drug dealer and have since severed all ties with the individual. I find that very hard to believe.

She let the drug dealer drive her white Benz, he got stopped, so she then lends another of her vehicles to the said drug dealer but yeah he was just an acquaintance according to her, doesn't everyone lend out their vehicles to people they barely know?!

Just how dumb does Santos think Winnipeg citizens are, but we do know she obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer!

The WPS played nice with her after her denial of a spot on the police board, stupidly she felt the need to say too much afterwards!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by drew

Regardless of her particular situation - the process has brought to light how the WPS has final say in who becomes a member of this oversight Board (via the secretive security checks). That in itself is problematic, and if nothing else, it should be changed to ensure that an independent 3rd party (RCMP) conducts the security checks.

That is fair but I thought it was pretty funny how the woke Twitter acab crowd rushed to Santos' defence since it turned out that there was more than a little substance to what the police were saying. Sure this situation has exposed some of the flaws in the process, but only someone totally naïve or a liar could say that she has been unfairly targeted here. I expect that she will follow rrskylar's advice and walk away from this instead of having her affairs put in the public spotlight.

[drew]

^ if the worst of it is that her good friend is a drug dealer, then meh.

If her security clearance denial is based on that scenario, and it appears to have been somewhat known prior, she really has nothing personally to want to hide, and honestly, yes by all rights she should be free to argue her case to an independent 3rd party.

Quite frankly, sometimes having the perspective of the other side of the law is something that would be of benefit to this Board, not a hindrance. Especially if if the person in question has a clean record.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by drew

^ if the worst of it is that her good friend is a drug dealer, then meh.

If her security clearance denial is based on that scenario, and it appears to have been somewhat known prior, she really has nothing personally to want to hide, and honestly, yes by all rights she should be free to argue her case to an independent 3rd party.

Quite frankly, sometimes having the perspective of the other side of the law is something that would be of benefit to this Board, not a hindrance. Especially if if the person in question has a clean record.

agreed.

theres to many jaided people in the system

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by drew

^ if the worst of it is that her good friend is a drug dealer, then meh.

If her security clearance denial is based on that scenario, and it appears to have been somewhat known prior, she really has nothing personally to want to hide, and honestly, yes by all rights she should be free to argue her case to an independent 3rd party.

Quite frankly, sometimes having the perspective of the other side of the law is something that would be of benefit to this Board, not a hindrance. Especially if if the person in question has a clean record.

Lots of people who have no record themselves, know friends or family who have been in trouble with the law. That's especially true for poor and disadvantaged people. Those are also the exact demographic the police board is supposed to ensure are not mistreated by police, so they should have representation on the board. Is the expectation that anyone who has a friend or family member who's been in trouble before, completely break ties with that person instead of trying to help them? Because that's only going to make their situation worse and lead to more crime......

[esquire]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Lots of people who have no record themselves, know friends or family who have been in trouble with the law. That's especially true for poor and disadvantaged people. Those are also the exact demographic the police board is supposed to ensure are not mistreated by police, so they should have representation on the board. Is the expectation that anyone who has a friend or family member who's been in trouble before, completely break ties with that person instead of trying to help them? Because that's only going to make their situation worse and lead to more crime......

The police source gave the impression that this was not just some situation where she happened to have a second cousin with a grow op or something like that. I don't think the police would do something like this lightly and I think there is an onus on Santos to clear the air. I think it's odd that the instinct of many here is to act like the police have some sort of vendetta against her.

[drew]

^ I don't think there is any sort of vendetta. However the WPS can't continue to be left in the position to approve or deny candidates to a Board who has some degree of oversight over the WPS.

To me, that is the situation that has been brought to light here, Santos' appropriateness of a candidate notwithstanding.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Lots of people who have no record themselves, know friends or family who have been in trouble with the law. That's especially true for poor and disadvantaged people. Those are also the exact demographic the police board is supposed to ensure are not mistreated by police, so they should have representation on the board. Is the expectation that anyone who has a friend or family member who's been in trouble before, completely break ties with that person instead of trying to help them? Because that's only going to make their situation worse and lead to more crime......

This isn't a poor or disadvantaged person she knows. It is a drug trafficker. Not just a drug dealer but someone who distributes drugs to drug dealers. I would imagine they know exactly what they are doing and have no intention of quitting as I'm sure it is a very lucrative profession. This is not a small time, oops I made a mistake type of criminal.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

So this little gem is on Elgin Avenue. A school zone where the school in question closed in 1980. A full 40 years ago.

I'd previously posted pictures of its recent reconstruction for an upcoming centralized ambulatory care centre here in Winnipeg.


I'd definitely contest it if I got a ticket here.

[1ajs]

contact ur city councler and if nessary make a speach on it at a councle meeting

[Hecate]

That school zone sign isn’t much different than the “construction” zone set up on the floodway bridge on highway 59 North. Never was it ever a construction zone. How our minister of transport thinks this is acceptable is beyond me.

[bomberjet]

Whatever happened to the design and construction of the new floodway bridges? It was announced last year sometime they had some innovative idea to rebuild those brigdes.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Whatever happened to the design and construction of the new floodway bridges? It was announced last year sometime they had some innovative idea to rebuild those brigdes.

Just another in a long list of derelict infrastructure in Manitoba, one lane of a bridge out of commission because it’s structurally not sound, no problem one lane on a four lane highway still good! It’ll get fixed when we get around to It sometime in the not too distant future or later!

[Eric19]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Whatever happened to the design and construction of the new floodway bridges? It was announced last year sometime they had some innovative idea to rebuild those brigdes.

Found a news article about it from last year. "The design work should be complete by the end of this summer with construction beginning next fall. (Fall 2020)"

Here is the news article.

[bomberjet]

It really wouldn't take much to fix that one span. A new girder and deck repairs. I'm not holding out any hope that this project gets done with the current state of affairs.

[Biff]

The project is slated for late 2020 start.