# Svend Robinson quits politics!



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Press conferences right now going on... not sure he is quitting politics for good, but taking medical leave for personal issues he is going through that came to a head when he stole some jewelery. (But later reported himself to the police)


----------



## canuck1975 (Dec 7, 2003)

Oh Svend... always trying to be in the spolight... *giggle*

(sorry, I have a personal dislike of Svend and have for years, ever since I met him a long time ago and he was an arrogant prick)


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Publicity-seeker that he is, I'll give him credit for the appropriate handling of this situation. 

He didn't wait to be found out, but came forward to correct his mistake and accept responsibility.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> He didn't wait to be found out, but came forward to correct his mistake and accept responsibility.


I guess then, this would be his "second" coming out?

Cheers


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

In very poor taste, S. The man clearly needs help and is deserving of people's sympathy, not ridicule.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hats off to Svend for facing up to his crime. I know a few other politicians that should follow his example and they stole a heck of a lot more than a ring. 

Is it just me or is this "I was stressed" defense kind of odd? If he kicked in a coke machine that stole his quarter I might buy it but who vents there stress lifting a ring? I'm no psychologist so maybe stress could trigger a compulsion to steal. Never heard that one before though.

If it were someone else with less celebrity claiming "stress made me do it" would we accept it so easily? Could he have been caught or close to it and thought he should come clean with the stress story for damage control?

Not sure what to think. I guess it may become clear when more info comes out

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lindmar (Nov 13, 2003)

yup,, but it shows you, he's a thief, they all are.. They can't stop stealing,, so they steal jewelry at trade shows


----------



## _Outcast_ (Oct 17, 2003)

Wow, isn't he brave? Bullocks.

It's always easy to do the right thing when you know you're going to get caught. He admitted that several people at this event recognized him and that there was electronic surveillance in use. In light of this I think Robinson's attitude is, "Hey, I'm gonna get busted anyway so let me try to put the best possible face I can on this." So he orchestrates another PR stunt in an attempt to curry favour with the public and to elicit sympathy. Bravo. And the Oscar goes to.... I ain't buyin' it.

Stress? Sure, that's a fashionable scapegoat. "I was under so much stress that my only reasonable way of dealing with it was to steal a Ferrari. Or to kill someone. I'm the victim here, pity me, feel for me, don't hold me accountable." Colour me unimpressed. This is what happens when people choose to replace common sense and responsibility with Dr. Phil and his ilk.

I am however encouraged by the fact that Robinson will likely call it a career and as a result there will be one less bleeding heart liberal in Canadian politics. See, silver linings abound.


----------



## Vespasian (Sep 21, 2002)

> Wow, isn't he brave? Bullocks.


Er, that's *bollocks* mate. 

"Bullocks" are young male cow-type things. 

Bollocks are something quite, quite different. 

As I'm sure Svend would confirm.

- smw


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i saw the story last night. forget which network though.

at first when i heard what mr. robinson had done and then saw him shedding crocodile tears at the news conference i had the same cynical response that most people probably had.

but then the newscast did a retrospective on his political career, which i was surpised to learn began way back in 1978. they showed him fighting for Sue Rodriguez, the Natives in BC, the environment, Gays, and a whole raft of other controversial topics that no one in their right mind would touch with a ten foot pole.

people like Svend Robinson are a rare in politics and it would be a shame if this one momentary lapse of reason were to bring his career to an end.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I've always had a lot of sympathy for backbench MPs, but especially those who come from the far reaches of the East and West coasts. It's easy (and let's face it, sometimes unavoidable) to say that MPs have it easy: great pay, lots of wasted time listening to yourself talk, and some nifty jaunts on occasion. But having spent a good chunk of my career working with some of these guys, I can tell you that you couldn't pay me enough money to do their job. The hours are gruelling (7:00AM-10:00PM is considered a normal day), you're always "on the clock" plus for those MPs who come here from far away, it usually means having to live a double life: work here in town and fly home on weekends to be with your family. Suffice to say, it's an occupation that takes its toll on your personal life and on your health (divorce, alcoholism and maybe even suicide are higher in this line of work compared to the national average). If memory serves there's even an orientation course that is offered to new MPs that pretty much warns of how bad it can get unless you take care of yourself. 

My take on this is that this is a crazy-stressful line of work. This guy clearly was at the end of his rope and did something dumb. Rather than deny it or hide it, he admitted he needs help and isn't asking for to be exonerated from criminal charges (despite what was implied earlier in this thread).

Try empathizing rather than rendering judgement simply because he's conveniently a politician or of some stripe that makes you uncomfortable.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> yup,, but it shows you, he's a thief, they all are.. They can't stop stealing,, so they steal jewelry at trade shows


Wow, talk about cynical. Svend can be called many things (and he has), but a "thief" isn't one of them. While I'm certainly no Svend supporter, I do know enough to say that this kind of behavior is completely out of character for him. He has always been one of the most Honourable members on the Hill...by actually having the gumption to stand up for what he believes in and the things that have been important to people in his riding...a rare accomplishment in this era of bullsh*t partisanship. 

Throughout his political career he has been a tireless defender of human rights of all kinds (not just gay rights), environmental issues, victims' rights, doctor-assisted suicide, international justice, etc. 

Yes, he can come off as a bit of prick when you meet him, but try to remember what he has gone through in his life. He was the first Canadian MP to ever admit to being gay, he has endured unbelievable homophobia in the House of Commons from other MPs and the media , he almost died in a 1997 hiking accident, his relationship with his long-time partner Max has been splashed across the papers and smeared with innuendo and nastiness (more so than any straight MP). And let's not forget how the gay community tries to get him to pick up the torch for every issue under the sun...there is only so much one man can do. 

Let's not forget one thing in all this, his news conference yesterday was not to try and get out of criminal charges. He said, very clearly, that he is prepared to accept whatever consequences comes out of the police investigation. Those throwing stones at him should ask themselves whether they would have the nerve to admit, on national television, that they had done something wrong. Methinks not. 

Yes, he can come across as a bit of a prick when you meet him...and I bet it's a defence mechanism that has worked well for him over the years. So, while I'm not a huge Svend fan, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this time...and see what happens.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Try empathizing rather than rendering judgement simply because he's conveniently a politician or of some stripe that makes you uncomfortable.


pg

I have no problem believing politicians are under stress. I can easily accept the fact Svend claimed to be stressed. Where he lost me was the implication that his theft was a direct result of stress, thereby painting himself as the victim of forces beyond his control. If he threw a brick through Steven Harper's office window I'd say yeah, stress may have got the best of him. Stealing a ring at an auction just doesn't add up.

Svend has proven himself a master of using the media to further his causes. Watching all the tears and hugs he got in his press conference reminded me of the old saying "when life deals you lemons, make lemonade". 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> If he threw a brick through Steven Harper's office window I'd say yeah, stress may have got the best of him. Stealing a ring at an auction just doesn't add up.


That wouldn't have been his style anyways. Svend is a tremendous advocate of free speech; even those he doesn't agree with -- including Stephen Harper. 



> Svend has proven himself a master of using the media to further his causes. Watching all the tears and hugs he got in his press conference reminded me of the old saying "when life deals you lemons, make lemonade".


That sounds like sour grapes to me. They guy came forward and was honest about something. Canadians keep bitching and moaning about how they want "accountability, transparency and honesty" from politicians...so, it seems a little unfair to skewer one right after they admit to a lapse in character and judgment. 

Besides, it's not like he stole $100-million or anything.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> That wouldn't have been his style anyways. Svend is a tremendous advocate of free speech; even those he doesn't agree with -- including Stephen Harper.


Svend being the master architect of bill C-250, I beg to differ.  

Cheers
MacGuiver

[ April 16, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## canuck1975 (Dec 7, 2003)

Free speech sadly has it's limits, and I doubt that literature that advocates genocide of certain groups is something that the general Canadian society wants floating around. Svend did not introduce hate-bias legislation, that was done by the Liberals in the early 90s, he introduced an ammendment to include sexual orientation as one of the groups targeted by hate-bias.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I think the reaction of his peers (including PM) speaks volumes to the respect they have for him.
He has always been high profile in a positive way as opposed to say Shiela Copps who it would seem everyone want's out.

He has led a life which to this point I admire. He seems to have enormous courage and I hope he gets over his problems.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I feel empathy for Svend. No doubt the man has been under great stress. I knew as soon as the report came out that ultra right wings would somehow associate his ordeal with the fact that he is gay and imply he is somehow character flawed. 

Bill-C-250 is needed to protect against hatred against gays... ultra right-winged religious that are against it can't even see the irony in the fact that the entire bill is there to protect their freedom of religion as well. 

Many people who are very stressed do something completely ridiculous. People will do things to purposely get caught or bring attention. Thankfully, Svend didn't do something to himself... 

To me his tears and his support from his circle looked pretty genuine to me.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

> Stealing a ring at an auction just doesn't add up.


Of course it doesn't make sense. He's not well. If it made sense (i.e. if he did something wrong and had a clear motive) would it be any easier to understand? Sometimes you have to give people a break in life, and to me this is clearly one of those cases. He did the right thing. And as for holding a press conference, well stop the presses, politician holds press conference. That's what they do when their life is a very public one--and judging by the press it attracted, there can be little doubt it was a story of national interest.

And at risk of changing subjects, what exactly is the fault that some find with his support of C-250? Perhaps there's something I've missed, but what's wrong with a bill that simply aims to protect citizens from hate?


----------



## canuck1975 (Dec 7, 2003)

I'm pretty sure he chose to go to the media on his own in an attempt to gain our empathy for his situation. He was obviously already under investigation, as he admitted that people recognized him *and* there were security cameras. He returned the item, however, and as such may not be charged with committing a crime.

He's getting help for his condition, which is great for him. If I were his PR person I probably would have advised him to release a short statement admitting what he did and asking for privacy during hsi ordeal. Instead, he orchestrated a live national media circus to revolve around him.

He's fought for the general good of our society, but that does not excuse his actions. The owner of the jewelry ultimately will be the ones to choose his fate, with their decision wether to press charges.

It doesn't excuse the fact that I found him to be an arrogant prick ten years ago. I was a presenter at a conference and I wanted to _thank_ him for everything he's done, and his way of handling it was so... so... what's worse than arrogant? So yes, I have personal dislike for him and am obviously biased against him.

(I'm sure that Chretien would rub me the wrong way as well, probably worse than Svend ever could)


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> As the master architect of bill C-250, I beg to differ.


C-250 aims to limit hate against an identifiable group (gays and lesbians), while also ensuring protection of religious beliefs. Svend went to great lengths to ensure his bill protected religious belief, while also protecting a minority group that is all too often subjected to hate and biased crimes. 

As someone who has been a victim of such crimes, I applaud the legislation. If someone cares to start another thread on the subject, I am sure we could have a good discussion. 

As for Svend, he has always supported free speech.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Svend has just demonstrated that he is human, something most elected representatives appear to forget as soon as they get on the plane to Ottawa. He has made Canada a better place during his tenure and has been a strong advocate of individual rights. I hope he soon recovers and resumes his position. This country needs people of integrity. He slipped, caught himself and has asked us to give him time to repair.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> As the master architect of bill C-250, I beg to differ.


So MacGuiver, you were the master architect of bill C-250?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> So MacGuiver, you were the master architect of bill C-250?


LOL. Yeah I guess I better edit that. I sure don't want to take the blame for it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Don't be ashamed of it Macguiver. It's obvious many of us think it a worthwhile piece of legislation.  

Beside, neither you, nor Svend should be judged by one act.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The latest local news on this says that Svend didn't actually step forward and confess his sins until four days after he stole the jewelry. By that time, the cops were on to him and he'd been contacted about the theft and told that he was positively identified from videotape evidence.

The rumours around here say that he has been a tad klepto for quite some time. He and his partner spend quite a bit of time out here on the Gulf Islands and he is well known in these parts. His behavior around here has been somewhat "colourful", shall we say.

The Vancouver Police are going ahead with an investigation about the incident even though the outfit that he swiped the ring from has decided not to press charges. Apparently they are doing this because of strong rumours that Svend has done this before....and some people are saying that his jewelry box should be checked out rather closely.

Considering that he only won the last election by about a thousand votes or so, we can be reasonably certain that this is the end of his political career, no matter what the investigation turns up.

Bye Svend. It's been a slice.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for twisting the knife with additional rumours and innuendo macnutt. He fell on his sword. End of story. I don't find kleptomania is particularly funny, personally, considering the devastation it causes.

He's certainly done more positive things for this country than the majority of the population and I, for one, saliute him for that.


----------



## Ingenu (Jun 4, 2003)

This situation is somewhat similar with what happened in Quebec in the 70's. Claude Charron, a promising young MP of the PQ, was caught stealing a suit. As Robinson, he was gay (which was really not easy in these times), under great stress (he was suffering from depression), etc. He also confessed is crime as Robinson.

As Charron said, it was a kind of political suicide, a radical (and silly) way to get out of the situation. Stealing is stealing, but I can't put the blame on someone who's been demonstrating a lot of good things before.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Svend is a major celebrity out here. The papers have been full of stuff about his past "infractions" and the TV stations have been interviewing all sorts of people about it. It's well beyond the rumor stage. And you can bet that the Vancouver police would not be moving ahead with the investigation if they didn't think there was something solid behind it. They've had too much recent controversy lately to risk another public faux pas.

Especially with a hot button personality like Svend.

BTW...perhaps you might like to give us a refresher about how many wonderful things that Svend has done for all of us. Many people out here consider him to be a public embarassment. I absolutely fell off my chair laughing when he loudly proclaimed before the world that "Cuba is FAR more democratic than the United States" a few years back. His unswerving support of the palestinian suicide bombers in Israel has raised more than a few eyebrows as well.

He's a colorful guy all right.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

A colourful guy? Svend has done some pretty wacky things but has also engineered concrete progress, e.g. clear cutting. The assisted suicide incident opened up to many the horrible dilemma of incurable, progressive disease and our lack of empathy for the victims. Bill C-250 further hammered down the coffin of hate discrimination. The fact that he came out in the mid-80s was also courageous and set an enormous precedent. That this was important is emphasised by the continual neanderthal treatment of homosexuals by the (progressive) Conservatives.

Besides all, Svend refused to conform. Isn't that achievement enough in an age where politics has descended into pointless rhetoric.

As for rumours and innuendo, I'm sorry, but what I've read is not based on hard fact. I'm sure they'll come out if true, but until then, twisting the knife is plain nasty.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> And you can bet that the Vancouver police would not be moving ahead with the investigation if they didn't think there was something solid behind it. They've had too much recent controversy lately to risk another public faux pas.


Given how the Vancouver police have taken their sweet time laying charges in the Bertuzzi assault case because it involves the bloody NHL (despite having about 25,000 witnesses), it would be appalling for them to move so swiftly against Svend Robinson.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm not sure that they will charge Bertuzzi. They never charged Domi when he jumped Samuelsson back in the mid 90s (and his suspension was only 8 games, too).

Also, it was more like 19,000 people at GM Place.

As for Svend, I don't know what to think other than I am completely un-surprised by the reactions. Lots of sympathy, lots of cynicism, and not much in between :/


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Domi mugged Samuelson in Toronto -- different police forces, different provincial Crowns.

That aside, police across Canada can be notoriously slow investigating incidents, and it's the Crown attorney, not the police, who decide if a charge is to be made.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Different police forces yes, but my point was more that there was no legal proceedings in that case either, and it was more severe.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

More severe than Sven, yes, more severe than Bertuzzi, no.

Samuelson suffered a concussion and a half-dozen stitches. I'm not sure if he missed any games, but resuming his career was never in doubt and I doubt he spent much time in a hospital.

Nor did Domi have to deliberately chase down his prey. The two were virtually side by side.

How do you figure the Domi incident was more severe?

They were both ugly.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

From the footage I saw, Bertuzzi snapped and jumped on Moore. 

From what I remember of Domi, he dropped his glove and socked Samuelson in the head from behind. This indicates some premeditation, as opposed to a flash of anger. A premeditated act deserves a more severe punishment, no?

I, for one, think that the resulting injury shouldn't have too much bearing on the punishment. If the Bertuzzi incident happened again and Moore was not injured in the slightest, Bertuzzi still jumped on him from behind. There are limits and exceptions to this of course, but I don't think that Bertuzzi exceeded them.

But this is probably a topic for another thread.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macnutt, I don't quite understand the pleasure you derive from the misery of others. The jewellery auction house, like virtually all jewellers, was under video surveillance. It makes no rational sense that a highly recognizable public figure would perform a heist in broad daylight. He is clearly sick. It's easy to kick a man when he's down and I have zero respect for your glibness and gloating over the self-destruction of an effective politician. Methinks you would not be so eager to twist the blade if the subject was Stephen Harper.

Rubber-necking has never been one of humanities better behavioural traits. The riding association has dumped him. Fair punishment?

P.S. Talking of Stephen, the Liberal strategy seems to be to paint him as a right wing, pro-Bush, evangelist (kinda like Stockwell). Fortunately/unfortunately, Stephen seems to be doing his best to fit that role by having three Christian evangelists run in Ontario and by repeating hsi support for the invasion of Iraq.

P.P.S. I am not anti-Christian. I do believe in complete separation of Church and State.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The ring that Svend stole when he "snapped and lost it" was worth a cool fifty thousand clams. That is NOT petty theft.

Plus, he didn't fess up and make his tearful confession until he was confronted by the RCMP with the videotape of the offence. Only THEN did he decide to give back the stolen merchandise to it's rightful owners. This was several days later, BTW.

Today's papers are full of an account by a different jeweler who says that Svend spent some time with him at his shop, previous to the theft, picking out a stone and designing a ring for his long time partner. Svend said he'd "check his bank account and get back to him to see if he could afford it". This stone and setting would have cost Svend about ten grand or so. But he never came back.

Apparently, he decided to go for a much more pricey bauble. But he didn't want to actually PAY for it.

This jeweler says that he has videotape evidence of Svend looking over the stone and choosing the setting, several days before the now-famous event. I'll try to find a link to post about all of this.

Svend is finished. It's all over for the most colourful NDP MP that Canada has ever known.

Last sunday's CTV "Question Period" featured NDP MP Lorne Nystrom who said as much himself. He is a friend of Svend and says "He is not the man he was. He is sick and needs help"

Lorne Nystrom was also charged with shoplifting a few years back, BTW.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Posterboy, we'll have to agree to disagree. Bertuzzi's attack seems a lot more premediated as he tried to start a fight and when Moore skated away, he chased him the length of the defensive zone, punched and tackled him. In comparison, Domi's punch is a "snap" as he sucker punches Samuelson during a stop in play when they are standing close to each other. If Domi planned to get Samuelson, he likely would have done it while play was on.
And severity of injury or damage is always a consideration. Suppose Moore had died, don't you think Bertuzzi would be facing a manslaughter charge instead of an assault charge and the more severe penalties that come with that?
We can agree this belongs in another thread though and I won't address it again here.

Woodget, at least Macnutt is going "to try to find a link" to support his allegations, which is more than he usually does.

It should be noted that Nystrom was acquitted of the shoplifting charge. And if Macnutt's posting was a news report, he would be open to a libel suit for not saying that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim....the title of this thread is "Svend Robinson quits Politics!". I did not initiate this thread.

But I AM discussing the subject and relating all of the latest information about it. The information that has now come to light is that he has done such things before (although not on this scale) and that the theft was preceded by a lengthy consultation with a different jeweler about a similar ring, a few days earlier. This clearly indicates pre-meditation of the act and NOT a guy who "suddenly snapped and lost it". The fact that he didn't give the stolen merchandise back until AFTER he was confronted with videotape evidence by the RCMP, again several days later, makes most people wonder if he'd have kept the ring if he hadn't been caught.

If this constitutes "kicking a guy when he's down" in your mind then so be it.

To me, it's simply an active discussion about a well known and very controversial MP who has always sought publicity. He has not shut the door on a possible return to public life, despite how far fetched that may seem right now. Before we allow him to resume his high profile in public life, we need to discuss what happened and review all of the circumstances that led up to it.

If he's truly ill, then we should wish him all the best for a speedy recovery, and welcome him back once he's better. If he's a klepto politician, then we should expose that fact and reject him soundly.

We already HAVE quite enough of THOSE in Federal politics right now. Don't you think?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> He has not shut the door on a possible return to public life, despite how far fetched that may seem right now.


No more far-fetched than having an alcoholic Premier whose wife used to be well-known to Alberta women's shelters...seeking refuge. Yet, he still rides high in the polls.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I haven't heard anything that indicated that Gord Campbell was ever classed as an alcoholic. He has quit drinking, even at social events, since his arrest for drunk driving while on vacation in Hawaii.

He is still riding high in the polls for two very good reasons. He is doing just what needs to be done to get this province back on track after the disastrous NDP decade...and he is the only viable alternative to that batch of loonies that we have right now. His popularity will continue and we will have another Campbell led government in BC next year. No question about it.

Back to Svend....

He is done for. He may actually be charged for the crime, when all is said and done. It was NOT a small theft, after all....and he did NOT step forward and admit to the criminal behavior until after the RCMP confronted him about it.

Many normal Canadians get charged with impaired driving. Almost NO normal Canadians steal fifty thousand dollar rings.

Neither should be allowed to get away with it. Campbell was charged with his crime, and paid a price. So should Svend.

The popularity question will be decided by the voting public.


----------



## canuck1975 (Dec 7, 2003)

or the Premier who's  approval rating went *up* after he was charged with drunk driving...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No way of telling what this will do to Svend's popularity. It could go up or down.

I suspect that most Canadians have some experiences with drinking and driving...and that this might have led to sympathy for Campbell's situation.

Not many out there who shoplift expensive jewelry, though.

The next polls should be a good read.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Are you actually suggesting that drinking and driving is more understandable/forgivable than stealing a piece of property?

Since when did pocketing a ring physically hurt anyone? COmpare that to the thousands of lives ruined through jerks getting behind the wheel after drinking. If ever there's a case for zero tolerance, this is it.

Stealing is a punishable crime and is certainly not victimless (although the victims tend to be the general public who pay via insurance). But drunk driving is an enormous problem, everywhere, that kills people and leaves massive scars.

www.madd.ca


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> I haven't heard anything that indicated that Gord Campbell was ever classed as an alcoholic. He has quit drinking, even at social events, since his arrest for drunk driving while on vacation in Hawaii.


I was actually referring to Ralph Klein...alcoholic, former spouse abuser and current Premier of Alberta. 

And as for Gordon...he should have stepped down as Premier of BC right after his arrest. What a disgrace.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, you repeatedly say that Robinson didn't fess up until he was confronted by the RCMP with the videotape of the offence.

Please provide a source for this allegation.

None of the stories I've read, say this. The closest any come is that he was identified as a suspect by the auction house before he went to the police, which doesn't disprove Robinson's contention he try to contact them before he went to the police.

Let's have the source please.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Brainstrained,

This Globe article says that the auction house provided video evidence of the theft to the RCMP 48 hours before Robinson's announcement. I think we can assume that the RCMP contacted Svend in that time and that it prompted the press conference.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040418.wsven0418/BNStory/National/

Sad though it is, I think this has to end his political career.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Thanks Fink-Nottie, I've read more than a dozen versions of that story but it does not say he was confronted by police and I don't think we can assume anything.

If the reporter or any reporter knew the police confronted Robinson or even asked Robinson to report to the station to make a statement, you can bet he or she would have written that. It puts a different cast on the entire story.

And every other reporter covering the story would be scrambling to match it. But no one is.

Police investigations, especially in theft cases, seldom move along at any great speed, especially on a holiday weekend. 

So no assumptions, just a real source please.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

No problem Brainstrained,

I'm not overly cynical, but I can't believe he would call the press conference etc based only on a nagging conscience. I would think too that video evidence of an MP stealing a $50K piece of jewelry would be enough to pull police officers back from their long weekend vacations.

I doubt we'll get absolute proof till much later (if at all), but on balance, I think it's a reasonable assumption... until I hear conflicting evidence.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

People shouldn't be tried and convicted by the public on assumptions.

By repeating the "assumption", it becomes "truth."

And when "assumptions" are proven wrong, too often the "truth" remains.

There is no doubt that Robinson has confessed to the crime. No one needs to accept that Robinson did so out of altruistic reasons, but there is no evidence that police confronted him it and in effect compelled him to confess.

Unless Macnutt can provide a source.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I see that we've touched a nerve, and that always hurts. I'm not going to debate whether Ralph does this or does that; but I don't have a problem saying that like everyone, the Premier of Alberta has a public and private life and they are not the same thing.

Only when one interferes with the other is it relevant at all, and I don't know of any reason to believe that ever happened.

Is he an alcoholic? Well, not a single 12-stepper I've met would say he isn't. Nobody quits drinking unless they are, at least according to those I know who feel they had to. That doesn't make him a bad person, let alone a bad Premier, but it's the unvarnished truth to anyone who's been there.

But I can think of a bunch of reasons why they would be wrong (the reformed see things in black and white). Maybe Ralph quit because he's diabetic. 

Personally, I could care less and don't think it's appropriate to attack character when it's not about his job, which is policy and practice of the Alberta Government.

Churchill was a great man. He was also an alcoholic, and I don't know of any accounts that say it affected his work to the detriment of England or it's allies. Not important in the grand scheme of things, which is why history makes so little of it.

As for Mr Robinson, I doubt that anything further would come from it in the way of charges because it doesn't meet the test of being in the public good.

Canada won't be a better place if he is charged now, so there's no public interest in doing so (mostly because a conviction wouldn't carry a meaningfully severe sentence anyway; he'd get a conditional discharge with some kind of public service, which he's more than capable of pulling off).

Having said that, he's lucky in my books that he quickly fessed up and resigned from politics, a kind of self-punishment that public servants are expected to understand and comply with.

Otherwise there would be very good reason to bring charges (ie lying, denying, concealing or fighting it means you do have clear criminal intent in mind).

It's not fair for those who have no public service to the community to hold up as evidence of their "goodness", but so goes it in the real world.

Madame Justice may be blind, but it's a blindfold; she's not into poking out one of her own perfectly good eyes just because it would be "fair" to do so. There is no "fair", there is only what is done and what is not done. Like it or not, welcome to reality.

For the rest of us, in the same situation but without a public face, we would find out very quickly that we're just part of the rabble. Get a good lawyer and perhaps drag out that high-school yearbook; you might need to renew your relationships with friends in low places, because you won't get off so easy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've just spent more than an hour searching for a workable link that backs up what the newspapers and TV are saying right now in Vancouver. Nothing seems to work.  

I have no idea what I am doing wrong. It should BE there. But, then again, I spent the last four years with a crappy dialup that disconnected me every seven minutes. As a result, I am a neophyte at finding workable links on the net. Just the way it is.

This stuff is all over the local papers and on all the TV news broadcasts. Perhaps some of our other ehmac citizens who live in this area could help to provide working links to the stories.

Unless they are prevented from doing so by ideological boundaries, that is.

Bottom line?

Svend stole a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring. He planned to give it to his Cuban boyfriend when he proposed marriage. He checked out a five thousand dollar ring a few days earlier at a different jewelry shop. He spent some serious time with that jeweler discussing settings and then said "I'll have to check my bank account to see if I can afford it"

He didn't come back to THAT particular jewelry shop. We can only suppose that his bank account was not able to handle the load.

Two days later he stole a FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR diamond ring from a specialised auction of fancy jewelry way out at the Vancouver airport!

It's not like he just happened by that particular place. It wasn't even widely advertised...or very well known by the average buying public. The sale was held at a specialised venue. Perhaps he thought that there would not be any sort of video surveillance at the site. It was an auction, after all.

Anyway...

Almost three days AFTER he stole the ring, the RCMP showed up at his condo and presented him with clear videotape evidence that he had swiped the expensive ring.

THEN...and only THEN....he gave it back and, a little later on...he made his tearful confession on TV.

A klepto politician who is well known for his whacko stances on many policies...or a crusading groundbreaker who just suddenly snapped under the pressure?

We will have to see.

Svend was already dancing on the very edge of defeat in his own long term riding. He just barely won the last election. Who knows what would have happened in the next election...even without a much publicised theft of 50 thousand dollars worth of jewelry?

It should be rather illuminating to see what the poll numbers say about him in the coming days.

Let's watch and see.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macnutt, if providing a link is beyond your capabilities, then just name a newspaper and give us the date. 

Was it the Sun, Province, Times-Colonist, a smaller community newspaper, the CBC, CH, V1, CKNW, or someone else?

It's easy to check out a source, if we have a name and preferably a date.

So forget the link, tell us who.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, help me out here. Why is it that if an non-Albertan disses Ralph, its taken as an insult to all Albertans? I don't think this is true in any other Province.

Whatever happened to free speech?

P.S. Feel free to insult Dalton McGuinty as I won't take it personally









P.P.S. Could someone pulleeze give Macnutts computer a kick? Doesn't have to be too accurate.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

utbj, I guess when you have known someone for 15 years one tends to take it personally.

I know a side of the man few others do and the comment didn't ring true, thus my reaction.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> I was actually referring to Ralph Klein...alcoholic, former spouse abuser and current Premier of Alberta.


A totally unfair and biased statement. Hardly justified, unless you have some documented proof.

The man has not touched a drink in over a year that I know of.

Is it not odd how some people make these kinds of warped observations when their own actions and behaviours might be construed by others to require a closer look as to why they hold those views?

Remember that those who point a finger, have three pointing back in their face. Also remember that insulting our Premier is insulting Albertans, and that includes me.

Cheers


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> A totally unfair and biased statement. Hardly justified, unless you have some documented proof.
> 
> The man has not touched a drink in over a year that I know of.


I very much doubt that you know whether Ralph has had a drink or not during the last year, unless you have some "documented proof." And in keeping with the "Svend only faced the music because he got caught" line, Ralph only came clean about his drinking problems after he too was caught...shouting and swearing, in a slurred voice, at men in a homeless shelter asking them why they didn't have jobs before throwing money on the floor and walking out. 

Premier Klein's drinking has been well known in the province for decades, yet reporters didn't report on it. Check out this interesting piece from the Canadian Association of Journalists web site that looks into why it was not reported. 

As for domestic abuse, I don't believe it is a problem anymore, but the Premier's wife was a relatively frequent vistor to women's shelters when he was mayor of Calgary. It was well-known in the social services sector at the time. My apologies for not having a link for that. 

However, I believe my reputation on this site and in the debates in the forums has always been one of fairness, honesty and integrity. While I would not have voted for Mr. Klein, I would never invent such stories to prove a point. In fact, I applaud the Premier if he has, indeed, overcome these most difficult problems. 

And SINC, let's not blow things out of proportion please. A criticism of your Premier is not a criticism of all Albertans.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I haven't seen or heard anything that says that the cops contacted Svend before he turned himself in, or that Svend knew that the cops had videotape from the jewelry auction or that this video even showed the theft being committed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In this case, so far without any evidence to the contrary, I think Svend is telling the truth. He did something incredibly stupid for some reason that he doesn't understand. After stewing about it for a couple of days he turned himself in and resigned, hopefully to prevent any damage that his stupid act would have on his party or others. I don't think Svend should be forgiven for his stupidity, or trusted with public office again, and I doubt if he will be.

I think it's important to contrast this with another politician from BC, Gordon Campbell.

He drove a car while falling down drunk, with the possibility of killing someone who may have been on the road that night, as he weaved all over it. Fortunately, he was caught and spent the night sobering up in the Maui drunk tank. He made his tearful mea culpa, while lying and saying he didn't know what his breathalyser reading was and downplaying how much booze he had to make it seem like his act was no more than a simple miscalculation, something that most people could relate to. But it wasn't just an extra glass of wine, or one extra martini, he was more than double the legal limit. I don't think most people, in this day and age would get behind the wheel, when they were so drunk that they couldn't see or walk straight. 

By the time the real numbers were out his buddies at the Vancouver Sun had already published polls saying that the majority forgave his small indiscretion and were now putting the issue behind them. He did not feel the need to resign for his potentially murderous action, or comment further when it became known how incredibly drunk he really was. He manipulated the media and public and denied that what he did was really that bad. In my opinion his actions were worse than Svend's nor does he have the courage to resign, as Svend has done.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

At the time of the Campbell arrest, the Globe and Mail performed a test. They provided drinks to 4 or 5 volunteers and assessed their blood alcohol levels at various times through the evening. The subjects were all male (I think) and of similar build to Mr. Campbell. They were incoherent and illogical by the time they achieved his recorded blood alcohol level (estimated at 10 drinks for Mr Campbell). But even at that level of intoxication, none said they would be prepared to get into a car and drive. The test was monitored by a police breathalyser technician.

There was no need for an editorial to explain these results.

Campbell made AT LEAST 10 critical mistakes and misjudgements in Maui. Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone despite his stupidity and arrogance.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Scuse me...but wasn't this thread about Svend and his theft of a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring?

When exactly did the spin doctors manage to shift it into a question about Ralph Klein?







 

Last time I checked, Ralph Klein was extraordinarily popular with the people of Alberta and is presiding over the only balanced budget in all of the Canadian Provinces.

That was AFTER he inherited a Province that was deeply in debt and a party that was at only 17% in the polls. Even WITH the oil revenues!

Near as I can find out, he's never stolen a damned thing, either.

Svend, on the other hand, has never been associated with a party in power, and was on the edge of losing his seat in the next election...even WITHOUT the latest scandal...and is a loud and proud member of a Federal Party that hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of forming a government. Now or ever.

He stole an item worth fifty thousand dollars. And didn't give it back until he was copnfronted by video evidence of the theft by the RCMP several days later.

If you or I did that, then we'd be locked up right now. Simple as that.

So, can we stay on the topic of Svend? And what happens next in his political career? Por favor?

Unless Gord Campbell or Ralph Klein swipes a Ferrari in the next few days...and doesn't give it back until the RCMP shows up...then these guys are not even in the same league as Svend.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Unless Gord Campbell or Ralph Klein swipes a Ferrari in the next few days...and doesn't give it back until the RCMP shows up...then these guys are not even in the same league as Svend.


I dunno...I kind of think the fact that Klein doesn't want to cough up more than $65,000 in receipts related to his travel puts him right up there. And that's $15,000 more than Svend's ring. 

Theft is theft and accountability is accountability I always say...and at least Svend came forward. Klein just sits there bitching about being caught. 

You all decide who the "bigger man" is.   

Stay tuned...perhaps Alberta will have its own sponsorship-type scandal soon enough.

You can also read all about it in the Edmonton Journal, which also includes a lovely transcript of Ralph's pathetic visit to the Alberta Public Accounts Committee (the provincial cousin of the Federal committee looking into the sponsorship scandal).

[ May 06, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: VertiGoGo ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hmmm..let's see now....

Cheating or underreporting on an expense account. Sounds like something pretty much everyone has done at one time or another. Especially the more prominent members of our Federal Liberal party. In fact, they're past masters at this. So is pretty much everyone else in the upper tax brackets. Goes with the territory.

Swiping a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring and not turning it in until confronted by the RCMP (with videotape evidence), several days later?

Not in the same league. Sorry.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Svend Robinson and Ralph Klein are not in the same league. Agreed (although I think my ordering of that league is different from yours macnutt







).

People are excused for cheating on their expense reports? Hmmm... isn't that where the sponsorship scandal had its roots?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

People are NOT excused for cheating on their expense reports, Jim. And yes, it DOES have a lot to do with the ongoing sponsorship scandal.

But many (most?) of the upper ecehlon have done it at one time or another. Bucketloads of normal middle class Canadians have also done this. Many still do, every year. 

However...I would bet you that practically NONE of them have ever stolen expensive jewelery from a store. Or even CONSIDERED it, for that matter. Swiping a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring is way beyond the line for pretty much everyone in our current society. Especially for our most outspoken and visible public figures. Thank goodness.

As for any comparison between Svend and Ralph Klein....

I tend to agree with you. They are not even on the same page. Ralph is well liked by the vast majority of his constituents and will be soundly re-elected by large majorities for as long as he chooses to remain in the game. He is the ruling force behind what many consider to be the most sucessful province in Canada. In every measureable way.

Svend, on the other hand, was always a terribly controversial figure. A publicity hound who lived to shock people with his wild flights of public fancy. A guy who loudly stated that Cuba is more democratic than the United States (??!??) and who actively supported the Palestianian suicide bombings of innocent civilians in Israel. Among other questionable things.

He just barely squeaked out a win in the last election and, by all accounts, was doomed to defeat in the next one. He has NEVER been a member of the ruling party of anything, and never would have been. 

Ralph has a million or two people cheering him on and voting for him to continue.

Svend only got about 14 thousand votes in the last election. Less than half of the registered voters in his constituency, apparently. He is a minor, powerless, public figure. Ralph Klein is the long term leader of the most economically sound province in the second largest country on the planet. Ralph is a mover and shaker. Svend is just plain shakey.

Not a fair comparison at all, really.

[ May 08, 2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ralph is certainly a character and has his own inimitable style. Albertans have an affinity to him that I don't really understand. Perhaps its got something to do with it not being so hard to run a Province when every mistake can be plugged by dropping money into the hole? When life is good, no on is looking to bash their politicians.

As for Svend, he's also a character. I don't think we've heard the last of him - I certainly hope not.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Svend only got about 14 thousand votes in the last election. Less than half of the registered voters in his constituency*

If you take a moment to look at the official voting results for the 2000 election, you'll see that there were 73,370 registed voters in Burnaby-Douglas that year. Of those ~73,000 possible, 45,515 valid ballots were cast (99.5% valid, 62.3% voter turnout).

Svend Robinson received 17,018 votes in that election, which represents ~37% of the vote in that constituency. While it's not half, it's certainly respectable. 

He won by a margin of 1961 votes (~4.5%), which from a quick glance looks to be one of the closest races in the province, but considering that he was an NDP candidate in a province almost completely dominated by the Alliance[1], that's not exactly surprising either. Libby Davies, another BC NDPer for example, only won her seat by ~3400 votes. Scott Owen (LIB) only won by ~3500, also. For an example of how the Alliance dominated, look at Chuck Strahl's riding: He won by a margin of nearly 30,000 votes.

The election results:
(Svend's riding in the first link as is Chuck Strahl, Libby Davies & Scott Owen in the second link)
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSElection2000Results/final_bc1.html 
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSElection2000Results/final_bc2.html 

Voting results:
http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table11_bc_e.html 

[1] Of 34 ridings, the Alliance won 27, the Liberals 5 and the NDP 2.

(note: Not trying to take a stance, just trying to relay the facts.)

[ May 09, 2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Perhaps even Ralph has come to the end of the line?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> I tend to agree with you. They are not even on the same page. Ralph is well liked by the vast majority of his constituents and will be soundly re-elected by large majorities for as long as he chooses to remain in the game.


There's no accounting for some tastes, I guess.  



> He is the ruling force behind what many consider to be the most sucessful province in Canada. In every measureable way.


Let's see how well the province does when the wells run dry. 

As for Svend...I would agree that he used to be quite the media hound, but show me a politician who isn't. However, it is unfair of you, MacNutt, to dismiss him out of hat. Svend has been a tireless defender of human rights in Canada and around the world. He has also never advocated suicide bombers. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JWoodget....

The Alberta oil wells were pumping out cash when Ralph took over as the leader of the Alberta conservatives. Just the same as they are today. But, at that time, the province had a good sized debt and a growing deficit. Things weren't going very well at all, and the Conservatives were at 17% popularity. Pretty much everyone figured that the next Alberta government would be a Liberal one (Albertans are far too practical to ever vote for a majority NDP government).

Ralph turned the whole thing around. The place is now totally solvent and is considered a showcase for new ideas by Canadian Premiers of all political stripes. Foreign governments have show quite a bit of interest in the Albertan givernment since Ralph made the big changes, as well. Premier Ralph Klein has gone from being the butt of jokes to super popularity as a result of his policies. No other reason.

It's typical of the apologists for the left to write it all off as a result of "Big Oil Money". Especially when Big Oil Money hasn't made a whit of difference to a rather large number of regions. It's all in how the cash is managed. Not in how much of it you have.

Alberta is run like a tight business. It works.

You might like to have a closer look at what has worked in Alberta, and the lessons that can be learned from this. It will likely be coming to a province near you before very long. Trust me on this.


As for Svend....

Our redoubtable Mr. Robinson was a very vocal supporter of the "Palestinian struggle" and also a supporter of Yasser Arafat, Hamas, etc.

He traveled to Israel several times in high profile, well publicised media events and met with key figures in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He made numerous public speeches about how noble he thought the Palestinian "struggle to end the Israeli occupation" really was.

All this DESPITE the fact that international affairs, especially middle eastern ones, are not at all a part of the job description that comes with being an elected MP from a third string political party that is neither in power nor opposition in a country that is not a major player on the world stage.

This was obviously his own personal project, and he must have felt quite passionate about the Palestinian cause to have stuck his neck out so far while publicly supporting it. Even the US news services carried articles on Svend flailing around in the middle east.

Perhaps he didn't know about the suicide bombings and the murder of civilian non combatants by Palestinain suicide bombers? Or how integral that policy has been to Hamas and Yassir Ararfat, et al.

Gee....do ya think?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hmmm... the Palestinians should just be grateful they have a tent, eh?

The Albertan government has made quite a few major misjudgements which, thanks to rebounding oil revenues, have been papered over. Ever hear of the Alberta Innovation Fund? Lost $500 million before it even got started.

Ralph has been a good custodian. He is clearly admired by many. I think, though, that his character has become used to getting his own way without having to justify why. This arrogance seems to be a disease all politicians seem to catch.


----------



## Eaon (Apr 27, 2004)

Macnutt said:


> Near as I can find out, he's never stolen a damned thing, either.


No, Ralph hasn't stolen anything. He just gets drunk and beats up homeless people. And I find that SO MUCH more acceptable than theft. 

The only thing I hate more than a Liberal, I mean thief, is a bully.

stirring the pot, oh I'm just stirring the pot. la la la


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ralph Klein "Gets drunk and beats up homeless people"??

What sort of whacko/leftie pamphlet did you dredge THAT little gem out of?

















(and they call ME "extreme")

JWoodget...

Klein has been a very good custodian indeed. He took a province that was in debt and a party that was facing defeat at the polls and made them both into highly sucessful self-sustaining entities. 

In fact, he's been such a good custodian that pretty much all of the Premiers are taking pages directly out of his book these days. Charest is busily making necessary cuts in Quebec and pi**ing off all the public sector unions while doing it. Ontario is actively looking at privatisation of the public liquor stores, among other things. Campbell, here in BC, is practically a disciple of Ralphie. Even Newfoundland and labrador is heading down this same path.

Good custodians, all.  









Now can we get back on topic here?

Anyone care to speculate what Svend Robinson's ultimate fate might be? Will he squeak back in the next election? Will he even run? If he does, will he be defeated?

Will he be charged and go to prison for his theft?

Anybody have an opinion?


----------



## Eaon (Apr 27, 2004)

Macnutt, I like to call my whacko/left-wing pamplet "The CBC".  (Oh, and I live here, so I know what happens here - I don't need to read left wing pamphlets to know about current events)

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2001/12/14/klein_011214 

Look, it even got reported in the UK (don't actually know if these guys are left wing nuts or not):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,625363,00.html 

Ok, so he didn't actually "hit" anyone - bullying is still bullying in my mind (having been on the receiving end of a fair bit of it in my youth, I'll admit to slanted opinion)


----------



## Eaon (Apr 27, 2004)

As for being on-topic, regarding Svend, I think whether or not he goes to jail all hinges on whether it was he who turned himself in to police, or whether police came to him and that's when he fessed up. I missed any news reports that might have cleared up that sequence of events. Turned himself in = slap on the wrist. Police came to him = prison, but if he does go to prison, I don't think it'll be for a long time. 2 years less a day or one of those types of sentences. Lots of community service, telling kids it's bad to steal and that sort of stuff.

He'll never run again, but I'm sure the NDP would love to have him doing some form of behind the scenes strategizing - he's been in the political game for a long time, he probably still has lots to offer (and his stealing the ring wasn't a political action, it was a personal thing, so I don't think anyone would be able to draw a connection between that act and his ability to give good political advice).


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Our redoubtable Mr. Robinson was a very vocal supporter of the "Palestinian struggle" and also a supporter of Yasser Arafat, Hamas, etc.


Svend has never supported terrorism, but did support the right of Palestinians to self determination and a Palestinian state. Something even the US has said it supports. 

As for Arafat (and despite the mess he's in these days), try not to forget that he had just won the Nobel Peace Prize around the time Svend was vocal about his support. Most world leaders were also supporting Arafat at that time. 



> He traveled to Israel several times in high profile, well publicised media events and met with key figures in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...All this DESPITE the fact that international affairs, especially middle eastern ones, are not at all a part of the job description that comes with being an elected MP from a third string political party that is neither in power nor opposition in a country that is not a major player on the world stage.


You are clearly misinformed and haven't the slightest clue what the hell you're talking about. He was a member of the bloody all-party Foreign Affairs Committee for crying out loud. In 2002, he became a Director of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Group. Sounds like traveling to the Middle East may have fit the "job description" to me.  Also, try not to forget that until just recently, the NDP had more seats in parliament than the Tories...and last time I checked, the NDP has official party status in the House. 



> This was obviously his own personal project, and he must have felt quite passionate about the Palestinian cause to have stuck his neck out so far while publicly supporting it. Even the US news services carried articles on Svend flailing around in the middle east.


It truly amazes me how you manage to stay afloat in the sea of your own ignorance. If you're going to take ridiculous pot-shots, at least become informed about the man. 

While you may not like Svend for being a new democrat, a lefty, a gay man, or a thief...at least have the common decency to respect the fact that he was elected and re-elected by his constituents seven times, or that he's been recognized by more distinguished Canadian and international organizations and received more awards for his tireless pursuit of human rights than almost any other member of the House of Commons...on either side of the House. Try respecting his contributions to democracy and to Canada...because they are plentiful. 

Yes, he screwed up pretty badly with the ring debacle. However, I'd rather throw my support behind a man who fights for those who cannot fight for themselves, than a drunken bully with good business sense. 

Sometimes the bottom line, isn't the bottom line.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sounds like that "sea of ignorance" you mentioned may just be lapping at your own doorstep, vertigogo.

Your timelines are seriously out of whack when it comes to Svend's most public visits to Israel. The loudest and most bizarre statements he ever made from and about that area came long after Yassir Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And long after pretty much every thinking human being on the planet had loudly questioned the veracity of awarding a Peace Prize to a known and active terrorist. It actually cheapened the prize in many people's minds and the subject has been the butt of jokes for some years now.

Also...how do you suppose that Svend got himself on those Canadian/Palestinian comittees? Was he just picked out of a lineup? Or did he actively pursue these appointments? Gee...I wonder?

No question about it, Svend had an axe to grind about this. And it ran so counter to the feelings of his own constituents that he barely won the last election in his riding and was widely thought to be a sure loser this next time out.

I'm not sure why you think that I claimed the NDP was not an official Canadian Political Party. I've re-read my post several times and can find no reference to that whatsoever. I DID say that it was a third string political party, and that Svend had never been and never would be a member of a political party in power. I stand by that.

I could care less what status the PC's had at that point. I have never been a member of that party and only voted for them once in my life. I've voted for the Federal Liberals once, as well. Both were mistakes, as far as I am concerned. 

I have disliked Svend for a very long time. Not because of his sexual orientation. It began long before that was common knowledge to any of us. It started when I heard him making bizarre public statements and behaving in a manner that suggested he wasn't quite rowing with both oars in the water. When he boldly stated, in public mind you, that "Cuba is far more democratic than the United States" I was absolutely blown out of my chair. I know he's visited Cuba (that's where he found his partner, Max) so I can't explain why he would make a statement like that.

Certainly most Cubans would...to say the very least...NOT agree with Svend on this point. (I remember teling some of my Cuban friends about Svend saying this in public and they simply said "he's on drugs, ignore him")

As for your closing statement concerning Canada's most successful and longest sitting Provincial Premier....

Here's a hypotheical for you and everyone else to chew on, since you keep trying to drag him into this:

What if Ralph Klein had stolen a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring, and then not given it back until the RCMP showed up at his door with videotaped evidence of the theft and demanded it back? Several days later, no less?

I'll bet that this thread would have run to several dozen pages by now with some of the more heavily indoctrinated leftoids shrieking for Ralphie's head on a stick. At the very least, they would be demanding a lengthy jail sentence. There would certainly not be a hint of the sort of sympathy that we have seen expressed for Svend after HE committed a major jewel theft.

To me...that says a lot.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The timeline of the various notifications is still unclear (at least to me). Can you provide specific links macnutt? If so, I'd appreciate it. If not, then I'd rather not "trust you on this".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JWoodget...

FinkNottle kindly provided a link to prove that Svend didn't return the ring until several days after he'd swiped it...when the RCMP came to his door and confronted him with videotape evidence of the theft. 

It's on page four of this thread. Check and see.

Svend has sung his own svan song. Once and for all.

And yes...you can "trust me on this".


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm just glad you're not an RCMP officer/reporter/CSIS agent macnutt. If you'd read the actual link (or the posts that followed it) you'll see that while the video was handed over to the RCMP, there is no proof the RCMP contacted Robinson prior to the press conference.

Finknottle says:
"This Globe article says that the auction house provided video evidence of the theft to the RCMP 48 hours before Robinson's announcement. I think we can assume that the RCMP contacted Svend in that time and that it prompted the press conference."

I haven't seen any charges yet, have you?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I see Macnutt is back to repeating his usual "misstatements" without providing a single source for his allegation that police visited Robinson before his public confession.

A Google search provides not a single source of support for such an allegation, that if true, would have been repeated everywhere as it puts the confession in an entirely different light.

Think about it, every news media organization would have said something like "Robinson confessed after he was interviewed by police." Not a single news outlet has said that.

Rather that search would turn up the following:



> The auction house had it all on videotape, which they'd passed over to the RCMP, who were about to come calling until Robinson hastily returned the ring and called his press conference.


May, 10, 2004, LifeSite, a conservative pro-life organization 



> Yes, it takes some courage to hold a press conference and confess, but it is also an act of damage control, because Robinson knew he was on surveillance video and had even provided his name and address to the auction house prior to stealing the ring. In other words, he knew he'd get busted, so he confessed in advance.


April 21, 2004, Licia Corbella column, Calgary Sun 



> Mr. Robinson contacted police last Tuesday to admit that he had stolen the item, which has been identified in news reports as a ring worth $50,000.


April 20, 2004, The Globe and Mail 



> The jewellery was taken during a Good Friday auction at an airport boardroom and handed over to police by Mr. Robinson four days later. . . . Mr. Robinson said that he tried unsuccessfully throughout the long Easter weekend to contact the auction firm about returning the jewellery and went to police after another effort failed on Tuesday.


April 17, 2004, The Globe and Mail Web site story. 

One last point, open to the possibility Robinson was interviewed before his confession, The Globe and Mail's April 17 print edition said:


> It remains unclear whether police and Mr. Robinson had any earlier contact.


That was edited out of the Web version because it quickly became clear he had no contact with the police until he returned the ring to them.

Now Macnutt give us one source, just one, that says police contact him first.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...let's have a closer look at that timeline. And let's apply a smidgen of common sense to this. Just for good measure, eh?

Friday (Good Friday) Svend swipes the 50 thousand dollar diamond ring. Before that day was out, I'll wager that the auction house noticed the absence of their expensive bauble. Certainly they'd have noticed at the close of business that very same day. No later.

Then, at that point, they'd have had a small panic attack and would have immediately checked the survellance tapes. GIve em an hour to review the whole set of tapes (three different angles, if they have a reasonable competent security outfit working for them. Insurance coverage mandates this, BTW).

At that point they'd have their crook identified. Clear as a bell. We're talking...what...six o'clock or seven at the latest? This is still Friday, remember. 

How long do you think it would take the ripped off owner to dial the cops? Ten minutes? Thirty seconds?

The police run on a 24/7 schedule and will answer an emergency call from a jewelry retailer within a few short minutes, 24 hrs a day every day of the week. The cops were probably reviewing that videotape sometime around eight or nine on friday night. No later.

Given the fact that, at this point on friday evening, the Vancouver Police know for a fact that a major personality in the Federal NDP had stolen a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring, we can only come to the following conclusions:

Most likeley, they made a call to the lawyers that represent the Vancouver Police. No use making any mistakes at this delicate juncture. They probably also called the leaders of the Police Union. Svend is, after all, a major figure in the NDP and that Party is deeply intertwined with the Labour Unions. Best to check out the protocol before proceeding to the next step. just to be sure.

No later than saturday, noon (at the latest), the police would have been moving into the next stage of the investigation. This meant a confrontation with the man who was clearly seen to be stealing the expensive diamond ring on videotape. The police would normally do this "confrontation" at first light (on saturday morning) in order to prevent the diamond ring from being fenced or sold out of Province...and to catch the perp off guard. In this case, they probably waited and made a few tentative phone calls. To their lawyers, to their Union Bosses, to their Superiors, and...finally...to Svend himself.

Svend probably knew that THEY knew no later than saturday afternoon.   

This is where the timeline gets a bit confusing....

Why did it take another two and a half days to actually confront Svend in person and recover the ring? 

-Was there some sort of legal wrangling going on behind the scenes? (Svend IS a lawyer, after all)

-Had Svend already presented it to his young Cuban partner, Max, as a diamond engagement ring? If so...did it take a day or two to console the lad and smooth out the relationship? (giving an expensive diamond ring to your lover...and then explaining that the police want it back because you actually STOLE it...is bound to be a tough moment in any relationship) Did the police kindly grant a "grace period" to Svend in order to make it easier for him to fess up and return the stolen goods?

-Is Svend's high status in the NDP...and the Police Union's strong conection to the Union-driven NDP Party...the reason for the grace period? Were the Big Union Bosses away for the long weekend and did THAT figure into the almost three day s that the police took to recover the stolen goods from a major NDP figure like Svend?

-Mr. Robinson has publicly claimed that he is "under great stress" and many of his closest friends have said that he "is not himself these days". Most noteable is Lorne Nystrom, who repeated Svend's own claims of ill mental state on national television a day or two after the tearful post-theft confession.

Did the Vancouver Police give him a three day period to gather himself together before he was confronted about the theft?

If so...I wonder if any normal Canadian would be given this same courtesy after stealing such an expensive piece of jewelry?

I have several other pertinent questions about this whole affair. So do many other Canadian citizens, I'll bet. But they will have to wait until we hear more about the whole sordid situation. (if we ever do)  

Bottom line?

Svend swiped a VERY expensive diamond ring. He did not give it back until he was confronted by the police with videotape evidence. The police say that this was 48 hrs (two days) later. Some evidence points to a number closer to 72 hrs (three days) later. It was almost four days after the crime that Svend made his tearful public confession on the evening news, BTW

All that despite clear evidence that both the police and the Auction house knew EXACTLY who had stolen the diamond ring on friday evening, no more than six hours after the actual theft. Perhaps a lot sooner.

Svend confessed on the following monday evening.

Hmmm...I wonder if any of WE normal Canadian citizens could have gotten away with stealing a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring and not returning it until a few days later? Especially if our face was well known to police and easily identifiable, and was clearly seen on surveillance videotape stealing the ring?

Would we be still walking around in total freedom a few weeks later? Or still be considered as a viable candidate in an upcoming Federal Election? To a position of public trust? 









Think about that, for a few moments. Before you reply to this post.









[ May 17, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

There are so many assumptions in your "theory' it's ridiculous.

The only point of debate is whether the police confront Robinson before he gave them the ring.

There have been no news reports that they did. The closest any report comes is to say he gave it up to beat them to the punch.

If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Both the Vancouver Police and the Jewelry dealer knew exactly who had stolen the ring the same day that the crime was comitted. Both have said that the goods were returned "within 48hrs" by the perpetrator.

Do you suppose that the cops and the rightful owners of the diamond ring simply sat on their hands for two days? When they knew EXACTLY who had stolen it?

Would they not have confronted Svend with the videotape evidence at the earliest possible moment? The TV News article claimed that they had. And also claimed that it was only AFTER this that Svend returned the stolen goods.

Ring was stolen Friday. Ring was returned 48hrs (or more) later. Tearful public confession takes place late monday.

What is so hard to grasp about all of this?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"What is so hard to grasp in all of this". 

Give us a single link we can grasp Macnutt. Simple. Just because you want something to have happened doesn't mean it did. Where are the charges? The prosecutor would have no choice if he/she was presented with evidence. In this country, you are still innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Links are great. I've found many of them. But, try as I might, I can't seem to get them to work here at ehmac about seven out of ten times. I copy the damn things down to the last forward slash...but once I post them here the preview always comes up "file not found" or "error".

It's probably something stupid that I'm doing wrong. I have only had a fully functional ADSL internet connection for about three months now. Before that, I almost never surfed because of the constant disconnects with my slow and crappy dialup (I live WAY out in the boonies and a slow buggy dialup was all that was available until this february). This forum was about the only place that I ever hung out. My full time haunt, if you will (hence all the posts).

Two things here:

1) If someone is ready to help me figure out what I'm doing wrong when trying to post links here at ehmac...then please PM me. I'm a bit new at this and I certainly don't know everything about how it works...but I'm ready to listen and am a fairly quick learner.

2) Check Google News/Canada and type "Svend Robinson" into the searchbox.... you will instantly have several articles that confirm everything I have said about the situation. Including the gap between his theft of the ring and his return of the stolen goods. Also several articles that show that he was actively shopping for similar rings at other jewelry shops in the weeks before he swiped the pricey bauble. This shows premeditation of the crime and wipes out any claims that "he just snapped" and stole the 50 thousand dollar ring on a whim.

He wanted a fancy diamond engagement ring for his young Cuban boyfriend, Max Riveron. He couldn't quite swing the cost, so he stole one instead.

The local newspapers and TV have been full of this stuff. It's common knowledge in these parts.

Check and see for yourself. It's all there.

[ May 20, 2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I did check for myself. I couldn't find squat.

Suppose you name the newspapers and media outlets?

And everyone can check their websites themselves.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey macnutt, if you can get a link to work 3 out of 10 times, then post it 10 times. Just one link would do that specifically supports your accusations in fact. I'll take those odds. Might do well to remember that newspapers (even the National Post) are well aware of libel laws in this country.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I checked Google, entered "Sven Robinson" and this appeared:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040416/SVEND16/TPNational/Canada

The Globe and Mail story says in part:

"Mr. Robinson said he regretted his theft moments after he'd done it.
"Immediately upon leaving the premises I realized that I must return the jewellery," he said. He added that he was "too afraid to go back." 
Unable to contact the owners by telephone during the long weekend, he went to police on Tuesday morning."

Looks to me like he went to the police, not the other way around.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

This is the same stuff as before. Where is the link stating that the police contacted Robinson before he turned himself in? Since this is the critical (legal) point, what transpired will determine his future and his intention. Is that request too much to ask?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Back to my original "common sense" argument, Jim.

The jewelry auction house knew precisely who had stolen the expensive ring the same day that it was swiped, because his face was on survellance video from several angles. Everybody around here knows what Svend looks like, he is a public figure of some repute, after all.

That was friday evening. 

The article on Google news claims that the jewelers turned all of the evidence over to the RCMP "on sunday", and that "the ring was returned 48 hrs later". That makes the return on monday or tuedsday...probably just before the tearful public confession. (the theft occurred on friday, remember)

-What's the chances that the jewelers hadn't already been in extensive talks with the RCMP before they turned over the physical evidence "on sunday".

-What's the chances that they didn't actually turn over the incriminating survellance tape to the cops on friday night? They were out fifty large, after all! Why the heck would they wait until sunday? This sounds like someone in the PR department of the police wanted to soften the blow for Svend a bit. Or buy him some time to retrieve the diamond engagement ring from his boyfriend, Max.

Either way, the tapes were shown to Svend, and THEN he returned the ring. Days after the theft. That's the timeline that was reported in all the mainstream media out here. It's also what the news article on Google news claims.

BTW....did you read the rest of the articles? Especially the ones from the other jeweler who ALSO has Svend on video checking out engagement rings at his shop the previous weekend? He was also all over the local news. That's what put the final nail in Svends political coffin. And put paid to the tearful claim that he just "snapped and lost it".

It was premeditated. No question about it.

Also no question that Svend is finished as a politician.

We already have quite enough theives in Parliament these days, thank you very much.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

As I've said before, people in this country are considered innocent until proven guilty. We also have strong libel and slander laws to prevent false accusation. Given the circumstances, the complete absence of evidence that the police went to Robinson rather than the other way around means that your conjecture is just that.

Just hope that no one writes to Robinson and suggest he looks into the libellous posts here. Especially since, upon repeated challenge, no evidence has been proffered but the accusation has not been retracted.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Guess he'd have to sue the Halifax live news, the BCTV NewsHour, the Victoria Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun and pretty much everyone else who was involved, as well.







 

I'm not losing any sleep over repeating something that is common knowledge, believe me.









And I rather doubt that Svend is planning to sue anyone in the coming months. He seems to have his own legal problems right now.

BTW...you never answered my question. Did you go on and read the article about Svend looking at similar rings at a different jewelry store the week before the theft? He spent quite a bit of time picking out a diamond and choosing a setting. He was told the price was 10 thousand dollars. Then he said he had to check his bank account and left without completing the prchase.

Then...all of a sudden..right out of the blue... he SNAPPED and stole a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring the following week. 

The events are totally unrelated, of course. He was simply under a lot of stress and didn't know what he was doing when he pocketed the ring. It could have easily been a candy bar or bag of cheetos or something.

We should all feel great pity and forgive him immediately. Right?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> Links are great. I've found many of them. But, try as I might, I can't seem to get them to work here at ehmac about seven out of ten times. I copy the damn things down to the last forward slash...but once I post them here the preview always comes up "file not found" or "error".


MacNutt, just cut and paste the bloody link into the body of your next post. Don't bother trying to do it the "fancy" ehMac way with the URL button under the message window. It's that simple. 

I'm sorry if I sound rude here, but you have been asked repeatedly, for weeks, to provide one shred of evidence to support your claim that Svend only confessed after being contacted by police and have failed to do so. Meantime, others have posted link after link after link to disprove your assertions. So, at this point...either put up, or shut up.









What you have been doing is simple character assassination based on your dislike of Mr. Robinson's so-called "political grandstanding." However, it's no different than the grandstanding and showmannship of any other politician; like Stockwell Day's infamous JetSki news conference; the Reform Party's mariachi band protest in front of the Senate; Paul Martin's ridiculous Flat Mark; Ralph Klein's essay debacle; etc...

Looking forward to seeing your proof.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

He wouldn't have to sue those papers because they reported the facts. Not one of them has stated that the police went to him rather than the other way around. If you don't understand the difference or the significance of the difference, ask a cop.

By the way, anyone else offended by the advertisements for "traditional" marriage? A passive-aggressive campaign if ever there was one.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

> By the way, anyone else offended by the advertisements for "traditional" marriage? A passive-aggressive campaign if ever there was one.


I cancelled my Ottawa Citizen subscription because of that ad. It was a disgusting load of nonesense. However, given that this could start a whole other long thread...perhaps you could start a new one and we could discuss it there?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just checked. It's all there. The police were informed DAYS before Svend turned himself in to the RCMP.

Here's how you find it:

Go to Google. Select "News" from the section above the search bar. (make sure it's Canada news)

Type in "Svend Robinson"

The very first news article on todays page (it changes by the day, apparently) is the following headline:

*Svend Robinson explanation "almost laughable" says jeweler* This is from the Globe and Mail and is dated 18 april 2004


The last article on today's page carries the headline:

*Svend Robinson ring theft caught on video* 

It goes on to say that "Svend Robinson was caught on video surveillance stealing a ring worth fifty thousand dollars.The theft was reported to the RCMP days before Svend Robinson turned himself into police..."

This is from the Halifax live news dated april 17 2004

Look for yourself. It's all there. It's certainly been alll OVER our local news out here.

(Remember...Google News Canada...not just Google)


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Jwoodget... I think you're protesting a bit too much! We already know Svend is guilty because he said so himself. The only thing at issue is whether he turned himself in before the police contacted him. As police records are private, we may not find this out for some time. 

Macnutt and others believe that the police did contact him before he turned himself in... that's a reasonable assumption. You and others believe that he turned himself in as a matter of conscience... that's reasonable too as we know Svend is a man who take matters of morality seriously. There is also the possibility that he turned himself in before the police contacted him because he knew he would be caught... or perhaps a combination of the last two options; only Svend would know for sure. But I don't really feel it makes much of a difference... he made a serious mistake and he's paying for it as he should. 

Also I don't know a cop so fill me in. How does turning oneself in for a crime differ from getting caught. I know the Judge is more likely to be lenient (fair enough) but are there are other legal differences?

Finally, I saw the "traditional" marriage ads too and found them very sad... but that does belong on another thread.

Cheers!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sorry if I'm over-protesting but I find it personally offensive for people to make unsubstantiated claims and consistently fail to back them up. There is a significant difference in Robinson turning himself in prior to being confronted by the RCMP from a moral standpoint. He still stole the ring - no question. But what sort of thief would do so after registering his name, being instantly recognizable and under the lens of a camera? I think his penalty will far exceed the typical criminal penalties given to professional thieves.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JWoodget...

He stole the ring on friday. No question that the jewelry auction company knew exactly who had swiped it by that evening. Perhaps even sooner.

No reason to think that they wouldn't have informed the police of this a few short minutes after they knew who had swiped it (although they may not have actually turned over the original tapes to the cops for a day or two, it's a virtual certainty that some members of the Vancouver Police had viewed that tape on friday evening. Perhaps even sooner.).

So the cops knew EXACTLY who had stolen a fifty thousand dollar diamond ring from a major jewelry auction on friday. It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that they simply didn't act on this data until a couple of days later. ALL of the articles say that Svend returned the ring "about 48hrs later". The major TV news station in this area claims he didn't give it back until just before the tearful public confession on monday. 

-Svend Robinson stole a VERY expensive diamond ring.

-He didn't give it back right away. 

-The Vancouver Police knew he had stolen it. It takes yet another huge leap of faith to think that they would not have communicated this fact to Svend at the earliest possible time. Probably Friday evening or early saturday. He didn't give the ring back until later than that, according to all accounts. 

-His political career is pretty much over because of the negative publicity from all of this. (Many would say that it was already over, and that he was destined to lose the next election. The numbers certainly support this assumption.)

-No one tricked him into this, or uncovered any hidden "dirt" on Svend. He was not tricked or bribed or drugged into this bit of bizarre behavior. He did this particular character assassination all by himself, without any help at all. Sad though it may seem....in this case, he is the architect of his own personal disaster. 

Can we let this rest now? Or does someone want to keep beating away at this subject?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

"Can we let this rest now? Or does someone want to keep beating away at this subject?"

Sure, as you have conceded there is not one piece of evidence that he was contacted by the RCMP prior to returning the ring. 

The question is whether or not you conceded this point before or after a call from Her Majesty's Mounted Police. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...one more time. I'll simplify it a bit for you, okay?

-Ring stolen friday. Cops notified of the theft, with video evidence, by the jewelers the same day that it occurred.

But...Svend gives ring back a full 48hrs later. (at least)

-Not possible that the police didn't use that two day period to inform Svend that they had him cold.

-Not possible that the police didn't have the jewelers cell number (Svend claims he "couldn't get ahold of the jeweler to return the stolen merch until two days had passed") Not possible that the police didn't offer to contact the jeweler and return the stolen goods for Svend. Probably on friday night.

Svend is jsut as guilty of a major theft as any of us would be if we stole merchandise worth 50 grand and then didn't give it back until a few days later. And there is NO way in h*ll that the cops didn't know exactly who had stolen it.

If the police had YOU on video stealing a major item, and knew without a shadow of a doubt who YOU were....how long do you think it would take them to get around to tracking you down? Especially if they already knew where you lived...and the item was small and easily fenced. Like an expensive diamond ring.

Get real, Jim. This is getting tiresome. Let's move on.  

(Time for you to get a new hero, old buddy. This one's just trashed himself. Big time.)


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Wonderful. 

For the record Macnutt, you have not provided one shred of actual proof to substantiate your claims. It's all assumptions and conjecture with you. 

Just because you want something to be so, doesn't make it so. 

Case closed.  

I look forward to our next debate.









Cheers!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Another timeline . . .

1. Sven steals the ring Friday. . .

2. The jewelry people balance their receipts that evening but don't discover the theft until doing an inventory Saturday, they redo the inventory at least once, maybe twice. . . 

3. Then they spend several hours reviewing
tape as they had several cameras . . . 

4. When they are certain the ring was stolen and the tapes indicate a clear suspect, who they may or may not be able to recognize as Robinson, they call police. . . 

5. Sunday afternoon, as it is Easter, the police recieve the tapes and take statements. They may or may not start to review the tapes depending on holiday staffing and other priorities (after all if it takes the company almost 48 hours to hand over the evidence, how high a priority should it be?). . . 

6. Sometime Easter Monday, which is still a stat holiday for most police forces, they completed reviewing the tapes and have identified a suspect, they may or may not recognize as Robinson. . . 

7a. If they don't, they are pleasantly surprised when the suspect turns himself in the next morning . . . 

7b. If they do, as Macnutt suggests they probably want to consult with a senior officer and/or a Crown attorney. Of course, it's still a stat holiday, so getting hold of a captain and/or the right Crown, isn't easy. They may want to see the tape themselves and consult either other or someone else. No decision is likely to be made until Tuesday -- no sweat, the suspect isn't likely to flee.

8. But the suspect turns himself and the ring in Tuesday morning before police can act on any Crown advice or possibly even before they get any advice.

Bottom line Robinson turned himself in before being confronted by police.

Conjecture yes, just like Macnutt's, but given the absence of any suggestion in the media that Robinson was confronted first, far more plausible.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

You are right Macnutt, it's getting tiresome..... reading your repeated fantasies of what might have happened. You seem overly keen to charge, find guilty and convict - summary justice. Not in this country. 

FWIW, Svend Robinson is not one of my heros, but he has my respect and, at this time, my sympathy. He's a significant loss to Canadian politics and the Hill will be a lesser place without him.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A fifty thousand dollar diamond ring at a public auction is something that would be watched like a hawk. It's absence would be noticed immediately. Svend's image on the tape could not be mistaken for anyone elses, especially out here where he is a local celebrity of sorts. The police would have been contacted immediately, and they would have called on Svend, probably in person, not much later than it takes to get over to his place.

Yes, both are conjecture. Mine uses common sense and doesn't try to minimise the situation. Choose for yourself which one is the most likely scenario.

I suspect that we will hear more about this in the near future. It's a major news story, and the pertinent details will come to light at some point.

When that happens...I will start a new thread (or re visit this one) and we can see who was correct and who was wrong.

Until then, I'm _OUTA_ here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Although I am an Albertan, I have never had much use for Link Byfield, but it sure does look like he is gunning for Svend with his latest tactic in the Vancouver Province.

You can read about it here. 

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Svend has been charged! Although no one is guilty until convicted, I presume the prosecutor does have sufficient evidence to lay the charges. No doubt this will play out in the courts (Clayton Ruby is his lawyer). Pass the humble pie....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It took ages and ages for the police to decide to go ahead with charges. About two months. One must assume that they have some pretty compelling reasons for doing so...especially since Svend has such a strong following out here, and this will not be taken lightly by his many fans. 

We should also note that the auction company has publicly stated that they were NOT pressing charges against Svend. Even though they maintain a "zero tolerance policy" towards ANY theft of their goods.

Want to bet that we will be re-examining this thread, and all of the many opinions expressed herin, a few months hence? Especially when all the facts have become a part of the public record?

Anyone want to take this opportunity to re-examine their own personal opinions on Svend and his alleged guilt? Care to go back and look at your previous statements? Re-edit your position on this, in light of current and future events?

Here's your chance.  

As for me? 

I'm not changing ANYTHING I've said on this subject. 

Just so's you know.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

I kinda figured you would be elated macnutt.  

Like you, I will not be changing my opinion either. However, it should also be noted that I never defended his stealing the ring in the first place. I defended Svend's record in the House and his commitment to human rights...something a theft charge cannot take away from him.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I stand by my comments as well. I'm surprised he's been charged and it will be interesting to see if there is a conviction r a waste of money.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't think anyone including Svend denies it happened.
What should be the outcome is the issue.

Svend is a loss to Parliament.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My strong distaste of Svend stems from his whacko behavior and grandstanding in public. He has made statements that are bizarre and indefensible. His behavior while he has been here in the Gulf islands on vacation has been wayyy beyond wierd. It borders on the insane. Ask anyone who has had any contact with him in this area. The guy is a loon. Has been for many years.

Parliament has lost one of it's least credible and most bizzarre MP's. This is a good thing for all of us. 

Now that Sheila Copps is also gone...and Hedy Fry soon WILL be...we are all _MUCH_ better off.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

Svend did a bad thing. He owned up to his mistake and is prepared to accept the consequences. He resigned his seat in the house since he acknowledged he violated a public trust.

He has asked forgiveness.

I can forgive.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If you stole a fifty thousand dollar ring from a jeweler, and then kept it until confronted by video evidence by the police several days later...would you expect to be forgiven? Or would you expect to spend some time in jail?

I don't forgive Svend for his bizarre public behavior and his wild public statements, either. This latest bit of trouble is just one more manifestation of his ongoing battle to retain some scaps of personal sanity. 

Looks to me like he finally lost the fight.

And so ends one of the more whacko chapters in BC Federal politics.

Good riddance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Svend did a bad thing. He owned up to his mistake and is prepared to accept the consequences. He resigned his seat in the house since he acknowledged he violated a public trust.
> 
> He has asked forgiveness.
> 
> I can forgive.


Sorry. I can't.

The guy is a wing nut. Always has been. I have no respect for the guy.

But I know there will be enough "sympathy" for him, to let him off mildly by most people.

I am not "most people".

Hang the guy high.

Do the crime, do the time.

Give him a year in jail, and see what he is really made of.

My bet is it's Swiss Cheese.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The tax payers of BC will shell out a few hundred thousand dollars with a significant chance that the case will be lost. Robinson has been significantly punished and that the man is in need of help, not incarceration. Justice works in various ways. If he is not found guilty, he may well ressurect his career - something that would probably not have been possible wthout the charges. He may yet return to the Hiil (I, for one, hope he does).


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Svend is a loss to Parliament.


Look on the bright side, Parliaments loss will be the penal systems gain.

Canadians say they don't want two tier heath care in this country, I can't imagine they want a two tier justice system either. I know what they'd do to me if I were the one that stole a $50,000 ring, I expect no less for Svend.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I stand by every single thing I have ever said. Svend can't stand within a kilometer of ANYTHING he has ever said. 

He's "not packin a full seabag"...as they say in these pacific islands. "Trying to row with only one oar in the water". A couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. To say the least.

And he proved it when he stole that expensive bauble for his boyfriend.

That's not the only wild excess that he has committed around here. Just the first one that has attracted national attention from the news media. Svend is a cerified LOON.

And now we have all figured this out. Finally. 

This is a time of great change in the Canadian political landscape. Good riddance to bad rubbish. We will all be much better off now that he is finally gone.

Same with some of the other serious whackos that we have had to put up with. Like Jean Chretien, Hedy Fry, Sheila Copps et al.

All gone now. Or soon to be gone.

We are maturing as a country. Moving rapidly into reality...and casting off the excesses of our misspent youth.

About time, I'd say.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_"He's "not packin a full seabag"...as they say in these pacific islands. "Trying to row with only one oar in the water". A couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. To say the least."_

Your new found politically correct language in action I see.

Try applying that statement to yourself sometime.

At least Svend does more than talk.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The judge said, "Canada does not kick a man when he's down". It's nice to see we have some common sense in the judiciary. Svend has paid a significant price. Hopefully he will earn back his respect and continue to make a difference in the world.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter did you perhaps miss THE PROCLAMATION









MacNutt said:


> And anyone who has spent any time reading my many long-winded rants here at this forum will remember that the *ONE thing I will NOT do is to call anyone a foul name.*


and then about Svend



> He's "not packin a full seabag"...as they say in these pacific islands. "Trying to row with only one oar in the water". A couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. To say the least.
> 
> And he proved it when he stole that expensive bauble for his boyfriend.
> 
> That's not the only wild excess that he has committed around here. Just the first one that has attracted national attention from the news media. * Svend is a cerified LOON.*


Hence the


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Your new found politically correct language in action I see.
> *


Political correctness is way over-rated. This pretty mild


> *Try applying that statement to yourself sometime.*


Gratuitous flaming?? Let's be polite.  


> *At least Svend does more than talk.*


True, but he has shown to be a bit of a loud mouth. I think he's a bit full of himself.

Hey, he's a vocal politician....he's going to get some flack along the way. Who better qualified than Macnutt to dish some out?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Oh. lighten up!  ......what would this place be like without Macnutt?? Those assertations may have been certified "dissing", but questionable if qualifying for the "foul name" category. I can think of lots of "foul name" descriptions of people that would make those comments pale by comparison (I promise not to use any publicly). Sometimes the "posting in kind" theory just leads to stone throwing from both sides and really doesn't look good from the outside.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There has been some fairly liberal spraying of hatred in this thread toward Svend Robinson and his politics (including by self-professed Christians). Instead of sympathy or understanding, several called for his head. He admitted guilt and was subsequently charged. The presiding judge accepted his plea and spared him from incarceration and a criminal record. He instead required Robinson do 100 hours of social work "because you are very effective in this" (or words to that effect).

There is a moral to this unfortunate story. Justice has been seen to be done in a compassionate and sensible manner. In the States, he'd probably be dressed in an orange one-piece by now and be contributing to the 2% of people in the penal system. Tell me which is better for all concerned? Just another illustration of a significant Canadian difference with our neighbours.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey you were the one clapping about the "Ready..pull! skeet shooting allegory.









and you've got to admit practically simultaneous "High horse" "low blow" posts deserve a whack.

Svend screwed up - justice determined an appropriate penalty.

Macnutt uses it to serve up a diatribe about the guy. So in turn he gets back a bit of "dis of his own" since Svend is not here to defend himself. Nothing serious, just "appropriate"


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Ah,..... you're twisting things a bit there. I wasn't clapping ...just making an obtuse observation about the Macdoc and Macnutt relationship. (how come most guys with "Mac" in their name are stubborn rabble rousers????  )
So, go ahead....get out the salmon launcher, if you must!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Ah,..... you're twisting things a bit there. I wasn't clapping ...just making an obtuse observation about the Macdoc and Macnutt relationship. (how come most guys with "Mac" in their name are stubborn rabble rousers????  )
So, go ahead....get out the salmon launcher, if you must!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Svend...who was apparently "under SEVERE STRESS" according to his legal counsel (this is why he stole a sixty thousand dollar diamond ring for his boyfriend, apparently) still managed to suck it all up and go off on a taxpayer funded jaunt to Scotland at roughly the same time that his first hearing for the grand theft charge was being put before the courts.

His lawyer stepped up and took the media heat for that one. While he relaxed in the land of Golf and tartan.

He was seen in Scotland during this period, and was reported by the media to be "rested and tanned looking" while in the land of my ancestors.









No sign of the "terrible stress' at all.  

And there has NEVER been any public explanation of exactly WHAT that "terrible stress" actually WAS. 









(the guy is a total whack-job...always HAS been)









Since that time, he has pled "Guilty" to grand theft and been given a total discharge for swiping the sixty thousand dollar diamond ring (although he does have to visit a psychiatrist on a regular basis for several months).

He is, officially, "off the hook". No big surprise there, considering how many Fedreal Liberals have gotten away with stealing hundreds of millions of tax dollars without ever spending a single day in jail.

This is Canada, after all. The land of leniency...especially for errant elected officials and child molesters.

The interesting thing about all of this...and the reason that I resurrected this thread...is because I was just on one of the outer islands and I spent some time talking with a couple who have regularly rented a fancy BandB suite to Svend and his boyfriend Max on several occasions in the past...

They said that they had again rented to Svend and his lover. And that Svend had AGAIN been seen pacing up and down the beach in front of the B&B during the wee hours of the morning in the nude while making loud bird sounds and slowly flapping his arms . He did this for several HOURS, according to them.

Just to clarify things a bit...even out here on the whacky west coast, this might be considered to be rather ODD behavior. To say the least.

Ahhh, Svend. Always an interesting subject. But I'm sure glad he's out of politics, once and for all.

Boy Howdy!


----------

