Misconception about Pot

Not to flog a dead horse but I do want to address the blind obsessiveness that is driving the legalization of pot campaign which I see as cult like. I've said a million times before that there is a huge difference between pot and crack or crystal meth. A huge difference. So much of a difference that I agree it is insane to implement mandatory minimum sentences for pot when we need to deal with crack dealers not uses and violent crime.

Throwing everyone in jail for smoking pot would be a huge waste of tax dollars. Having said that I think it is really important we be completely honest and clear up some of the obsessive misconceptions about pot that many actually believe to be true despite the obvious facts staring them in the face and the huge dissinformation campaign on the internet.

Pot does not cure cancer. Chemotherapy cures cancer. Pot eases the side effects of chemotherapy. You can't get any more clear then that. When someone writes in and calls me an idiot for claiming chemotherapy cures cancer not pot I am forced to ask what else are you smoking? Years ago, if you had Hodgkin's disease, you likely died from it. Now it is totally treatable. Now many forms of cancer are successfully treated. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment are horrible things to go through but the success rate has been scientifically recorded. To say those documented cases are false is absurd. To abandon those facts and claim that pot not chemotherapy cures cancer is not only false but cult like.

Everyone knows that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. It causes lung cancer. The warnings on the packages keep getting larger and larger and society today all know about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. The concerns about second hand smoke has resulted in banning smoking from most public places including airplanes. Second hand smoke is irritating and unhealthy. So what makes you think that smoking pot is somehow magically different than smoking cigarettes?

I knew a guy just out of high school who was a long distance runner and liked pot. He knew smoking was bad for you so he ate it in cookies or hash brownies. The truth is, pot smoke is unfiltered and causes lung cancer even more so than smoking regular filtered cigarettes.

We need to be honest about the facts. When I see people obsessively denying the facts I'm forced to step back and reexamine their movement. Recently the Vancouver Province ran an article about pot legalization in Colorado. The picture that went with the article was a large group of demonstrators celebrating their victory and smoking pot in public. They all looked like a bunch of spoilt brat stoners. I don't go anywhere near the Vancouver Arts Gallery on 420. It's is completely out of hand. They're just a bunch of spoilt brats empowered by the mob mentality. To each their own but that is not my thing. Just so we're clear on that.

There are also concerns about ingesting pot in food. The guys at work are famous for bringing pot cookies to special events. They were all joking about one older guy who ate several of these powerful cookies and sat in his van for hours because he was totally f*cked up. I mentioned it to another old timer and he asked how many the guy ate. He was shocked and said you've only supposed to eat half of one. Well someone should have told him. Sitting in your van and getting f*cked up for hours is not my idea of a good time. Evidently they are having the same problem of controlling doses in Colorado when people ingest pot in food.

In fact, the cult like obsessiveness to legalize pot claiming it will solve all your problems and even cure cancer reminds me of the book Brave New World and how the drug Soma was used to tranquilize the masses into obeying the World State. Personally I think pot is over rated.



Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke.

Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke.

Part Two: Crack Cures Cancer

Stephen Harper vs the Supreme Court of Canada

Stephen Harper has launched an interesting mud slinging campaign of Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. The concern appears to be about Harper's desire to appoint Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court. Beverley McLachlin expressed a concern about his eligibility and Harper goes off on a tirade about how it's inappropriate for her to lobby the government about appointments.

CBC quoted Adam Dodek who said "Every minister of justice in this Conservative government and in its predecessor Liberal governments going back at least 15 years has stated publicly that they have consulted with the chief justice of Canada about appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. So where is the issue and where is the problem here?"

Wikipedia claims "Nadon was nominated by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to be a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was formally appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on October 3, 2013, and sworn in on October 7, 2013. Following controversy regarding his appointment, he stated that he would not hear cases until the legal challenge to his appointment was decided. His appointment was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 on March 21, 2014.

By a 6-1 margin, the Court found that he did not meet the requirement of s. 6 of the Supreme Court Act, which requires that Quebec appointments to the Court be either a sitting judge on the Quebec Court of Appeal or Superior Court, or a current member of the Barreau du Québec. As a result, the Court ruled that his appointment had never taken effect and he remained a supernumerary judge of the Federal Court of Appeal."

Harper ignored a legal caution from Canada's chief justice on Marc Nadon's eligibility and proceeded unilaterally. He has now launched a character assassination of her in retaliation. I'll admit that I didn't understand the beef at first. Quebec, BC. Nova Scotia, it doesn't matter where someone is from. A lawyer is a lawyer a judge is a judge and the elected government appoints judges.

The National Post clarifies the concern by stating that Justice Nadon sat on the Federal Court of Appeal, not a Quebec court. The Supreme Court of Canada Act requires at least three judges be “appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.” A key reason is to ensure expertise in Quebec’s civil code, which differs from the common law in other provinces. Mr. Justice Nadon is to be the third Quebec justice, after the retirement of Mr. Justice Morris Fish, but the Federal Court of Appeal is not a Quebec court, even if a Quebecer sits on it.

The Globe and Mail confirms that Justice Nadon was (and remains) a judge on the Federal Court of Appeal. No Federal Court judge had ever filled one of the three spots on the court reserved for Quebec judges.

So clearly Marc Nadonm can become a Supreme Court Judge. He just can't fill one of the three positions reserved for Judges with experience in Quebec civil law. It's that simple.

It's obvious on some appointments there are underlining concerns of political affiliations just like with the Senate appointments. For example, the right wants to appoint judges who oppose abortion and the left want to appoint judges who are pro abortion. That's just one example. Judges are supposed to be impartial and interpret the law but we know that's a fallacy in the real world since judges are human beings and have their own independent political opinions. Conservatives appoint their judges, Liberals appoint their judges and so forth. Beverley McLachlin was appointed by Jean Chretien while Marc Nadon was originally appointed by Brian Mulroney, hence the conflict.

We all know that Stephen Harper is an enemy of the Charter of Rights. He admits he hates it and wants to get rid of it because it restricts his quest for absolute power. Opposing that quest and upholding the civil liberty protected in the Charter of Rights is clearly a good thing.

One of the concerns on the table is that Harper wants to unilaterally do away with the Senate and the Supreme Court said no. The United States has a Senate and a House of Representatives. Doing away with the Senate completely gives one government far too much power. Senate reform is one thing but doing away with the senate completely is another. There is nothing wrong with making senators elected. There's nothing wrong with making senators accountable for their spending. It would be very hypocritical indeed to do away with the senate completely to "save money" when it was your appointed senators that were caught squandering tax dollars.



Upholding civil liberty and the Charter of Rights is a good thing. Yet it is clear that the court can easily overstep those boundaries and become a law unto themselves which is not in the public interest. Every civil servant need to be publicly accountable. It is wrong for the Supreme Court to make their own laws contrary to the democratic will of the people who pay their wages.

Peace in Northern Ireland

Peace in Northern Ireland is very problematic. It is very similar to the current struggle in the Ukraine as well as the problematic nature of Quebec Separatism. One side wants to separate but the other side does not. Clearly the recent arrest of Gerry Adams is an attempt to derail the peace process. Some want that process to fail. Most do not.

The struggle in Northern Ireland is not a two way struggle it is a three way struggle. It's not just the Irish fighting the British for self determination any more like it was in the south. In the north, half the population is Protestant and want to remain affiliated with England. The Catholics in Northern Ireland do not. They want to be free and independent of England. One side wants one thing while the other side wants something else making the conflict very problematic indeed. Setting up Storemount and self representation is a step in the right direction.

There is a crazy legend in Northern Ireland which comprises the province of Ulster involving the O'Neils. "According to one myth, the kingdom of Ulster had at one time no rightful heir. Because of this it was agreed that a boat race should take place and that 'whosoever's hand is the first to touch the shore of Ireland, so shall he be made the king.' One potential king so desired the kingship that, upon seeing that he was losing the race, he cut off his hand and threw it to the shore - thus winning the kingship."

Legend has it this was the O'Niels thus their use of the Red Hand of Ulster in heraldry throughout the generations. One could say that they were losing the boat race and cheated. Others would say if they want the land that bad, let them have it.

Wikipedia claims "Another variation of this story concludes that it was none other than Niall of the Nine Hostages who severed his own hand in order to win his crown from his brother." I don't believe that version. Niall of the Nine Hostages was the High King of Ireland seated in Tara outside of Dublin in county Meath. He wasn't in competition with his brother for anything. His son Eogan went north and settled Ailech just outside of Derry in the north. Well Donegal which is technically in southern Ireland but is in the north of the Island.

Eogan's heraldic symbol was the red lion which his grandson carried over to Scotland. Muirchertach mor mac Ercae was the grandson of Eogan. His brother Fergus mor mac Ercae went to Scotland and married into Scottish royalty there. As a wedding gift Muirchertach mor mac Ercae gave his brother Fergus the Stone of Scone which rests in Westminster Abby as recorded in the Anals of Ulster. The O'Neils red hand of Ulster was adopted later on. My father's father was a descendant of Eogan. Although he was born in London he was of Scottish ancestry. Originally the surname was O'Cahan but it was changed three times in Scotland after subsequent heirs.

Anyways, my point is the O'Neils are freaking crazy. No disrespect intended. The O'Neils themselves are fine but all this crazed obsession among the self professed loyalists is really toxic. "Londodnderry Westbank Loyalists still Under Siege, No Surrender." They are passionate about their right to live in that land and I have to admit they have just as much right to be there as anyone else. That's what makes the whole peace process problematic. You can't just kick them all out and do what you want. You have to include them in the process. Which is in itself problematic because I personally wouldn't want to live with those nutbars.

I rather find somewhere else to live which I have. Or at least my father and his father has. In my opinion it is a better land with mountains, forests and the ocean. I'm just a rider on a western highway. I am from Vancouver. That is my home now and that makes this land holy too. It is where we live. It is where our children were raised and it is where our fathers are buried. It is a multicultural community where people don't care what religion you are. We have no place left to go.

Not long ago I was on Grouse Mountain checking out the latest movie they have about local history in their viewing centre. I picked up on the accent the girl who was hosting the show and asked her where she was from. She said Ireland and I asked where abouts? She said Donegal, Letterkenny. Letterkenny says I with a big grin on my face. The land of the rebel safe houses. She smiled and her eyes grew wide and said shhhh. People here don't know about any of that. Indeed they don't. People here aren't interested in those kinds of conflicts.

I do hope and pray for peace in Northern Ireland but I do recognize that peace in Northern Ireland is going to have to represent both sides there who want two different things. Justice does not mean ignoring one to reward the other. One thing is certain and that is the violence needs to stop. Nobody wants that to continue any more. Just a handful of extremists that have no right to highjack the democratic will of the majority who just want to live in peace.

Are we going to go back in history before the signing of the 1998 Good Friday peace accord and retry every Protestant, every Catholic and every British insurgent for past murders? Because if you do one, you have to do the others as well. That would be a daunting task indeed that would clearly leave everyone blind. I don't think it would support the peace process either.

Gerry Adams on Trial

Gerry Adams is in the news both locally and internationally. He was arrested on suspicion of ordering the 1972 killing of Jean McConville, a mother of 10 in West Belfast.

Jean McConville was seized by the IRA from her Divis Flats home in West Belfast, shot dead and secretly buried. Her body was found in 2003 on a Co Louth beach. The IRA thought she was a spy for the British so they executed her. She was a widow and the mother of ten children. Her husband had died of cancer and the children were separated and raised as orphans. It is without question a tragic event. I hesitate to comment on the case but since everyone knows of my love for the Holy Land (Ireland) and since my hecklers will no doubt use this case to trash me I will address it now.

There are a lot of things that the IRA did that I don't agree with. However, there are a lot of things they did that I do agree with. The Easter Rising and the Irish Proclamation was an inspired rebellion against foreign occupation. The founding fathers of that sacred proclamation said: "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God. Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, in humanity, or rapine."

When I first visited Ireland many years ago, the IRA had kidnapped a dentist in Dublin and sent his fingers to his family with the ransom note. That was horrible. I did not agree with that. It was an example of inhumanity and rapine. Yet the quest for liberty is a noble cause. The movie Michael Collins with Liam Neeson sets the stage for the struggle that existed in that time period.

In launching their struggle against foreign occupation the provisional government needed to address the problem of informants. British spies who would pass on information to the invading army resulting in the murder of local revolutionaries. To combat this problem they initiated the practice of executing informants for treason. Treason is without question a serious offense. Executions without a trial is however, very problematic.

Was Jean McConville an informant that spied for the British? I don't know. I personally doubt it. Yet I don't doubt it because a British tabloid said there was no evidence she was a spy. I doubt it because if she was Irish and lived in the Divis Flats in West Belfast, I find it very hard to believe she felt any sympathy for the British invasion whatsoever. No one there does. I used to ride the black taxis down the Falls road to Divis flats in the late /80's.

I realize the family needs closure and will never find such because no truth will replace what was taken from them. Right or wrong it appears that the IRA executed their mother for being a spy. Whether or not she really was a spy is very difficult to ascertain. Yet we know who killed her and why. I'm not sure how trying to blame one specific person for that murder now will help with the healing process. When something as tragic as that happens, there is no justice.

I am somewhat surprised the police want to press charges at this point. I thought there was an amnesty granted since the cease fire and the peace talks from 1998, when the Good Friday peace accord was signed. Both sides murdered many people in that political war. The IRA, the UDA and the British Army. I was never a big fan of Gerry Adams. I had no problem with him. I was a fan of Bobby Sands. He was the activist who died for his beliefs. Gerry Adams was more of a politician. When Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers of H block were dying, Gery Adams was sitting at home in his office. Someone had to be the political voice.

I was in West Belfast when the crazed lunatic from the UVF, a branch of the UDA, showed up at an IRA funeral in Milltown cemetery and started throwing hand grenades into the crowd, then opened fire on the crowd with a hand gun as he tried to flee the scene. I was told not to attend that funeral but I had a friend who did. He was one of the youth that took fire and chased the gunman down giving him the boots until a British Helicopter came down and saved him.

Years later after word of a cease fire and a peace process many political prisoners were released as a sign of good faith. That's why I'm rather surprised they want to go backwards and arrest Gerry Adams for something that happened before the cease fire and the peace process. To me it doesn't seem to be bargaining in good faith. No disrespect to the genuine loss of the McConville family. It's just that even the Miltown bomber was released from prison as part of the cease fire.

To Jean McConville's children I say I am truly sorry for your loss. Nothing can replace what was taken from you. Yet as God lives, life does not end at death. You will see your mother and your father again. Your day will come. Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted. Remember, Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God. Many people were murdered in that war. We need to remember them, we need to honour them and we need to move forward to create a climate of peace so more innocent people don't suffer like you have.

The Irish Flag is an ensign for peace. It's called the tricolour. Green is for Irish Catholic. Orange is for the Irish Protestants and White represents peace between the two. When hate driven "loyalists" burn that flag and shout Ulster Say No to peace in Ireland, they are teaching their children to hate and as Martin Luther King declared hate is too great a burden to bear. Mistakes were made on both sides. "What's done is done, what's won is won and what's lost is lost and gone forever. All we can do is hope and pray for a bright brand new day in the town that I loved so well." Peace.

Nanaimo Hells Angel going back to Court

News 1130 is reporting that Nanaimo Hells Angel Robert Frederick Widdifield is going back to Court to face extortion and theft charges in connection to a stolen boat.

Widdifield and three others linked to the Hells Angels were charged in October 2010, and the trial was scheduled to start in October 2012 but was then put off until the fall of 2013. However, on June 11 2013 Justice Robert Johnston dismissed the case over delays.

The right to a speedy trial is indeed an important Charter Right. Not if you're the one causing the delays though. BC Court of Appeal Justice David Frankel has now ruled that Johnston was mistaken, and the Crown was responsible for only five months of delays, while 11 months of postponements can be blamed on the unavailability of defence counsel.

RCMP sued for sexual assault

Sadly, the Edmonton Journal is reporting that a southern Alberta woman has filed a lawsuit against the RCMP that alleges she was forced to perform a sex act while an officer drove her home. Which reminds me of the recent incident in France where a Canadian tourist claims she was raped by a police officer in France. Very sad. Pretty much the epitome of breach of trust. The officer claims it was consensual but two officers are being charged with gang rape.

Rob Ford smoking crack on video again

The Globe and Mail is reporting that yet another video has been produced of Rob Ford Smoking crack dated Saturday, April 26, 1:16 a.m. This time they have posted screen shots from the video.

While the Toronto Sun has reported that it has obtained a new and "raunchy" audio recording of Ford "ranting and swearing" in a Toronto-area bar on Monday night. CTV states that Rob Ford now claims he's still running for reelection but is taking a leave of absence to seek professional help.



Earlier Rob Ford was claiming people hate him because he's right wing. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. People hate him because he's an abusive drunk and a compulsive liar. Now we can add crack addict to that list. It has nothing to do with him being right wing or left wing and and it's really important we remember that. Sounds like Jack Layton's wife is going to run against him. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. We just need to be sure this has nothing to do with left versus right. It's about good versus evil. The right wing need to choose a new candidate.

It's like over in France. Sarkozy was a dirty dog. He sucked up to Gadaffi and tried to convince the world we should trust Gadaffi with Nuclear weapons because he wanted to sell Gadaffi a French reactor while he lined his pockets with campaign contributions. Then as soon as Gadaffi says he wants to buy a reactor from Argentina instead of France, Sarkozy leads the invasion into Libya and his troops provided the cover fire for him to be brutally executed without a trial.

Not only that, but Sarkozy was involved with kickbacks from selling Arms to Pakistan going to his party's political campaign. He was also accused of being involved with the "terrorist" bombing in Pakistan after a subsequent president canceled the kickbacks. Sarkozy was as dirty as they get. So what happened? France goes and elects a Socialist. From one extreme to the other. Now Sarkozy is trying to make a comeback. That is criminal. The right wing need to pick another candidate. When the right chose criminals for candidates the left wings. It's as simple as that. Which makes you wonder if that's not the original intent.

Calgary Hells Angel busted in Ontario

The Listowel Freepress is reporting that Owen Czech of Calgary, Alberta was pulled over in Ontario on April 11 and was caught with cocaine, methadone and a weapon. I assume more details of the bust will be forthcoming. Owen is a member of the Calgary Southland chapter of the Hells Angels. I'm not sure what he was doing with methadone. That's what they prescribe people who are addicted to heroin.

Of course the big news is the police crackdown on the Edmonton Hells Angels and the Whiteboy Posse murder trial. The Whiteboy posse sell drugs for the Edmonton Hells Angels. This is exactly what's supposed to happen. When the gangs do something absurd like shoot an innocent mother or decapitate someone fro a drug debt, then that brings a huge amount of attention to them and the police respond by cracking down on their business.

That is exactly what should of happened in Surrey when Janice Shore was brutally beaten to death for a drug debt in Whalley. Only instead of clamping down on the crack dealers in Surrey, Bill Fordy clamped down on the jaywalkers. You can sell crack in Surrey but you can't jay walk. It's time for Bill Fordy to transfer. Dianne Watts' claim that she is leaving Surrey a safer place is an offensive lie. She did nothing about the drug related crime she promised to address and left us with the biggest debt in the city's history.

2013 was the most homicides in one year for Surrey ever. Many of those murders were drug related. Business's complaints of drug dealers in Newton and Whalley fell on deaf ears as did their complaints about drug related crime. That is Dianne Watts and Bill Fordy's legacy in Surrey.

Law Society Bans Gay Lawyers

How's that for a headline? Law Society Bans Gay Lawyers. Or how about Law Society Bans Jewish or Muslims Lawyers. How would we feel about that? First of all it would be illegal. Second of all it would be wrong. This is what comes to mind when I read an astounding editorial in today's Vancouver Province. The editorial sates that Law Societies are wrong for caving in to activists calling for them to refuse to allow graduates from TWU's law program to be certified. I didn't even realize such an outrageous criminal act was even going to a vote.

It's no different than banning anyone who is Gay, Jewish or Muslim from being a lawyer. It is discrimination on prohibited grounds. Clearly some are concerned about the fact that Trinity Western University is a Religious private school. Does that means these unlearned enemies of the Charter of Rights would decertify the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America because that is exactly what they are trying to do. It is illegal and wrong to do so.

There are two cardinal sins of a free republic. The first is adopting a single state religion. Everyone has to be Catholic, or Church of England or Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. The second is like unto it. Banning religion altogether. A free republic does neither. A free republic means an Atheist and a Christian are both allowed to become lawyers.

This is exactly why some religious groups oppose the legalization of gay marriage. They are afraid that once they allow it, they will force all religions to perform it against their will or lose their charitable status. That would,be absurd. The United Church of Canada came up with the logical compromise. Allow gay civil marriage and allow individual religions to perform gay marriage if they chose but do not force them to do it against their will because that would violate their religious freedom. It's as simple as that.

In contrast, refusing to certify graduates from the TWU law school is no different that refusing to certify a gay lawyer. Both are wrong and illegal. Another concern they raise is the University's moral code. If this wasn't such a criminal act it would be laughable. Why does it not come as a big surprise that the Law society do not want to certify lawyers who have moral standards? Kinda like the saying, what do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

You see judges have to be lawyers before they become judges. These extremists don't want judges with moral standards to interfere with their interpretation of the law. Murder is a moral standard. Thou shalt not kill. Theft is a moral standard. Thou shalt not steal. All our laws are based on moral standards.

Nova Scotia says it will accredit Trinity Western law graduates — but only if they drop their gay sex policy. You can't do that. It is illegal. That's like saying they will accept Christian lawyers if they renounce Christ or Muslim lawyers if they renounce Mohammed or Gay lawyers if they renounce their orientation. That is religious discrimination and is illegal in a free republic. This doesn't come to a popularity vote. What if everyone got together and said they wanted to ban Islam from Canada. It doesn't matter if the majority of Canadians voted in favor if doing so. It would be illegal according to our Charter of Rights. That's all there is to it. The fact that this discussion is even on the table is astounding. Banning lawyers from having moral standards or religious beliefs is not what our soldiers died in the trenches for. It is exactly what they fought against.

Tony Wilson, a Vancouver Lawyer who states that he is an atheist who voted in favor of accrediting TWU Law school grads pointed out that the current case law upholds the Charter of Rights. The Trinity Western University v. B.C. College of Teachers case is still the law of Canada. That 2001 case, from the Supreme Court of Canada, determined that the B.C. College of Teachers could not deny accreditation of TWU’s teaching degree. So clearly what they are doing now is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights as well as the subsequent case law upholding it.

Surrey Stabbing

There are a medley of stories to catch up on but I want to pause on this recent stabbing in Surrey. Don Pitcairn from the White Rock Sun is reporting that his nephew was stabbed at a house party in Newton over the weekend. As soon as anyone says Surrey house party everyone tends to roll their eyes. Yet the circumstances of the assault are very disturbing.

The kid tried to break up a fight and was stabbed in the chest. He booked it for the door and four pieces of Surrey White Trash stabbed him in the back seven times and all gave him the boots in the front yard before they stole his wallet and cell phone. That is outrageous. One can understand that someone could get accidentally stabbed while trying to break up a fight but chasing him down, stabbing him repeatedly in the back then swarming him and give him the boots before stealing his wallet and cell phone. That is low life dirt bag.

What's even more disturbing is that Don has been putting up wanted posters trying to find the suspects who assault his nephew. Not that there's anything wrong with him doing that because there most certainly isn't. What's disturbing is that he has to do that and the suspects aren't already in custody. People at the party know who they were. Even if they were uninvited guests, people have iphones to take pictures and word gets around. People there would have heard by now who it was.

In Don's article he mentions the archaic code of silence thing and the grossly misused term rat. Let me be clear. Anyone who swarms someone and stabs them in the back are the rats not the people who tell the family or the police who did it. People who know who did it and aren't saying anything are the rats. That's all there is to it.

If you know who did it, tell me. I ain't the po po. If the police have a name then the victim can id them and you don't have to testify. This is really important. We can't let this kind of thing happen without doing anything about it. It diminishes all of us. This is not the way we roll in Surrey. That is Surrey trash mentally and it's fine time to take out the trash.