Simple? I have a business and do my own bookwork and income tax, but I wouldn’t want to wade through this bullshit. You expect little old ladies to be computer savvy? The reaction of these women bears this out. They won’t be doing raffles any more
I’m not concerned about criminality. Besides, sometimes the law is an ass. i’m ranting on the enforcement. You know damn well, there is discretion in law enforcement In a lot of cases the cops require a complaint from the public before they’ll act. In this case we are paying for people to shut down little old ladies who like to knit.
[quote]
The Flying Dutchman, why did you make these things up rather than base your rant on actual facts?
[quote]
Lookl, I just pointed out two clear errors on your part plus a lack of judgement on the hoops you have to go through to get registered. I backed this up. Don’t go fucking telling me I made this up. Perhaps part of your problem iis that you’re out of your jurisdiction.
Simple? I have a business and do my own bookwork and income tax, but I wouldn’t want to wade through this bullshit. You expect little old ladies to be computer savvy? The reaction of these women bears this out. They won’t be doing raffles any more
I’m not concerned about criminality. Besides, sometimes the law is an ass. i’m ranting on the enforcement by the province. You know damn well, there is discretion in law enforcement In a lot of cases the cops require a complaint from the public before they’ll act. In this case we are paying for people to shut down little old ladies who like to knit.
Lookl, I just pointed out two clear errors on your part plus a lack of judgement on the hoops you have to go through to get registered. I backed this up. Don’t go fucking telling me I made this up. Perhaps part of your problem iis that you’re out of your jurisdiction.
Muffin, I just reviewed your link which I didn’t think neccessary at first given the information I presented was researched , fresh in my mind and I knew where to retrieve it.
It appears that you have more specific, recent and better information than I and my local paper have.
[QUOTE=Muffin The Flying Dutchman, why did you make these things up rather than base your rant on actual facts? Why did you not not bother to check the procedure for small raffles before spewing your little balls of deficate derision at your bewildered adversaries?[/QUOTE]
Pity you didn’t take that back. Btw, I didn’t respond to your link, because I didn’t read it., just like you didn’t read my link. But trust a lawyer to twist the facts to suit his agenda. Pretty inept in this case.
Please do try to read with comprehension. My problem started with an innacurate statement on the front page of my local paper. It has nothing to do with rule changes or my making things up.
You can fuckity fuck fuck at me as much as you like, but the fact remains that you did make it up. You held out federal law as being provincial law, you held out law that was repealed years ago as being current law, and you threw in false requirements about charitable status without any reference to legislation what so ever.
Plugging your fingers in your ears and crying “I can’t hear you!” is no excuse. Here’s a hint. When someone you know to be a Canadian lawyer directs you to a link on BC law, you should read the link.
Of course I read your link. It was crap. You never should have posted it.
Setting out the applicable law is hardly twisting the facts, and certainly is not inept.
Again, you’re talking out your ass. BC is not out of my jurisdiction, I am the lawyer for a Canadian charity and some not-for-profits, and my unincorporated group of little old ladies here in ON holds regular raffles.
The problem lies with you flying off the handle without bothering to check your facts. You flew off the handle and ranted against the BC government without first doing a simple check to see what the deal was. When corrected on this by me, you then flew off the handle and started cursing away without first doing a simple check to read the link I provided for you. Now you are calling me inept. It’s time for you to calm down and try to think rationally, rather than continue to make things up and lash out at those who actually know what they are talking about.
It’s nice that now you are going to correct the newspaper (which I note ran its article without providing the government reasonable time in which to return its call), but it would be far nicer if you would simply do your homework rather than disseminate false information, and swear at and insult people who call you on it.
In short, either start acting more responsibly, or expect to continue be taken as a fool.
And when called on his lack of research, he then cited a regulation from another country on the other side of the world – trying to pass off a regulation in the State of Victoria in Austrialia as if it were a regulation in the Province of British Columbia in Canada.
Sure, there’s discretion in law enforcement - but that discretion doesn’t mean that law enforcement can just decide not to enforce the law. The discretion is to allow the law enforcement to look at the circumstances and decide if the situation is serious enough to warrant charges, or whether they should just advise that the conduct is illegal and give a warning.
That’s exactly what happened here, according to the article you cited. It looks like the gaming authorities got in touch with the knitting circle and warned them that an unlicensed lottery is a criminal offence. The knitting ladies, being good citizens, appear to be concerned about staying on the right side of the law, and withdrew the lottery. That strikes me as a good exercise of law enforcement discretion, and a sensible action in response by the knitters. (And, how do you know that there weren’t any complaints, after the knitters published their lottery advert? Seems to me that you’re just making an assumption there - we don’t know from the article whether or not there was a complaint.)