B.C government= Mafia

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Muffin]
No, that is not true. Such a permit is only $10.00.

[quote]

From Lotteries Gaming and Betting (Raffles and Bingo Permits) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 S.R. No. 117/1996

If you go back to my local newspaper link,

[quote]
Other community groups hoping to fundraise with raffles and 50/50 draws, beware – only registered charities are allowed to hold such events.

[quote]

I repeat my previous statement.

Application

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.

Back at ya

22

[QUOTE=Muffin]
No, that is not true. Such a permit is only $10.00.
[/quote]

From Lotteries Gaming and Betting (Raffles and Bingo Permits) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 S.R. No. 117/1996

If you go back to my local newspaper link,

I repeat my previous statement.

Application

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.

Back at ya

23

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.

24

I just submitted your link to the local paper for a correction.

25

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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]
Pity you didn’t bother reviewing the link prior to making a lengthy and again innaccurate response to the link.

26

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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]

WTH, the story is posted in the paper January 30th, and you started the tread 3 days ago, did the damn government change the rules in a week?

Wow, the BC government is fast with changes!

27

[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.

28

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
WTH, the story is posted in the paper January 30th, and you started the tread 3 days ago, did the damn government change the rules in a week?

Wow, the BC government is fast with changes!
[/QUOTE]

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.

29

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Don’t go fucking telling me I made this up.
[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I didn’t respond to your link, because I didn’t read it.
[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
just like you didn’t read my link.
[/QUOTE]

Of course I read your link. It was crap. You never should have posted it.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
But trust a lawyer to twist the facts to suit his agenda. Pretty inept in this case.
[/QUOTE]

Setting out the applicable law is hardly twisting the facts, and certainly is not inept.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Perhaps part of your problem iis that you’re out of your jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]
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.

30

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I can read and comprehend just fine, you said you researched it, not me. Now you are saying you got from the newspaper. Make up your damn mind.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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]

31

[QUOTE=FarmerChick]
I can read and comprehend just fine, you said you researched it, not me. Now you are saying you got from the newspaper. Make up your damn mind.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
From Lotteries Gaming and Betting (Raffles and Bingo Permits) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 S.R. No. 117/1996
[/QUOTE]

32

[QUOTE=Muffin]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Sigh

You win. I didn’t do that on purpose though.

33

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.)