24 thoughts on “Wind turbines to add to municipal policing costs

  1. This should not even be a news item. Mayor Weber, Have you lost your marbles? The additional policing cost will get paid by the landowners that have a wind turbine on their property. Period!!! Don’t even start a discussion!-End of discussion. Anything else is unacceptable!

  2. No postings about NS shutting down in NS as they have no buyers for turbine tower. And CS Wind in windsor laying off 50 pple cause they have no work eiitherr??????? Just saying. I’m sure protectionist laws are overridden by WTO. Coming soon. IWT made in CHINA coming your way. And TPP will even screw us more.

  3. When asked directly, Ontario Provincial Police officers admitted they “don’t read” as a regular part of their training.

    And in this way, police can launder for the international wind energy racket, in which they perceive their role is to protect terrorizing machines instead of the people (read citizens & taxpayers) who may be extorted, whose homes may be stolen, who may be the victims of fraud, some of whom may find themselves injured (assaulted) by the reckless and intentional conduct of wind energy profiteers.

    Here’s an example showing that if you don’t read, it wouldn’t make sense, (because when you do read, it doesn’t make sense!)

    [What is extortion?…]

    Hirsch v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
    ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2016
    Environmental Review Tribunal
    Case No: 15-068

    ‘[excerpt] [86] Overall, the evidence presented in this proceeding is inconclusive on whether exposure to audible noise from all or part of the Project will cause annoyance and if it did, whether the level of annoyance caused would be sufficient to cause serious harm to human health.’

    How is a person to reconcile this Environ mental Review Tribunal “finding” with this finding made by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s commissioned expert, “HGC Engineering,” in 2010! :

    “The audible sound from wind turbines is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.”

    from: “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Associated with Wind Turbine Generator Systems: A Literature Review”, Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited (HGC Engineering), Ontario Ministry of the Environment RFP No. OSS-07869, December 10, 2010

    • The Environmental Review Tribunal doesn’t think
      this needs to be reconciled!

      Here’s more excerpts from Hirsch v. Ontario,
      “the White Pines ERT Decision”
      showing how they perceived “Adverse Inference”…

      (What a racket!)

      ‘[excerpt] Adverse Inference

      [102] APPEC argues that the Tribunal should draw an adverse inference against the position of the Approval Holder and the Director because of their failure to call any witness affiliated with Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited (“HGC Engineering”), the acoustic consultants who carried out the NAR for the Project. APPEC submits that drawing an adverse inference is necessary in the interests of justice not just in this proceeding, but “also to ensure that future hearings before this Tribunal do not suffer from this type of omission.” APPEC relies on MacMaster (Litigation guardian of) v. York (Regional Municipality), [1997] O.J. No. 3928 (Gen. Div.) (“MacMaster”) in support of this argument.
      […]
      [108] APPEC has provided no convincing reason for why an adverse inference should be drawn merely from the fact that the Approval Holder or the Director failed to call a representative of HGC Engineering. It is also not clear what adverse inference APPEC believes the Tribunal should draw from this. The NAR is in evidence and the only one of APPEC’s witnesses to discuss it in any detail was Mr. James. Mr. James testified that he would have included uncertainty factors as inputs into the model, but he acknowledged that the NAR was prepared in accordance with the MOECC’s Noise Guidelines. His disagreement is with the Noise Guidelines themselves, which he considers to be outdated. The NAR was a necessary part of the Approval Holder’s application, which was relied on by the Director when issuing the REA. Its preparation and conclusions satisfied Mr. Miller and the Director that the approach presented had followed the relevant guidelines and that the Project would meet the MOECC’s noise limits. Mr. Miller was cross-examined about this. Moreover, the Approval Holder called Mr. O’Neal to provide expert evidence regarding acoustics. APPEC provides no rationale as to why a representative of HGC Engineering would be a material witness regarding the issue that the Tribunal must determine and whose failure to testify should lead to an inference that he or she would have provided evidence contrary to the Approval Holder’s or Director’s position.

      [109] The Tribunal draws no adverse inference from the failure of either the Approval Holder or the Director to call a representative of HGC Engineering as a witness. ‘

  4. Mitigating Factors

    ‘[excerpt] As killer drunk driver Marco Muzzo took the witness stand in a Newmarket, Ont., courtroom Wednesday to apologize and beg for mercy, the family of his victims stood up and walked out.

    Muzzo, 29, was not technically a witness. He was not sworn in, and thus not legally bound to tell the truth. He answered no questions. He did not even address the judge who will decide how long he spends in prison for the crash that killed three siblings,’

    ‘[excerpt] Instead, in a clipped voice, moving quickly through a short script, Muzzo spoke directly to Edward Lake and Jennifer Neville-Lake, who only seconds earlier had pointedly left the courtroom, declining to even hear him, let alone offer a hint of forgiveness.

    “As I listened in horror (Tuesday) to the catastrophic consequences of my actions (in victim impact statements), I knew my words would be of no consolation. Ever since the tragedy that occurred as a result of my inexcusable conduct, I have wanted to say that I’m sorry, and apologize to the whole family, from the bottom of my heart,” he said.

    “I will spend the rest of my life attempting to atone for my conduct, and devoting myself to educating the public of the disastrous consequences of drinking and driving.”

    Muzzo, the heir to a billion-dollar fortune, who robbed a family of its natural future in the horrific crash, was not simply making a public apology. He was throwing himself on the mercy of Judge Michelle Fuerst, and seeking to avoid the 10- to 12-year sentence advocated by the Crown, similar to what the average murderer can expect.’

    ‘[excerpt] He later told a psychiatrist he was stunned by these results, because he remembered having only three or four drinks on the plane and did not feel drunk. The night before, he had been drinking until the early morning.

    The Neville-Lake children were on their way to Brampton in a Grand Caravan with their grandparents, […] Only the two women survived.

    It was a classic T-bone collision on a clear, dry day. Muzzo’s vehicle blew through a stop sign just as the Grand Caravan entered the intersection. Muzzo saw what was about to happen and tried to avert it.

    Evidence showed he braked, holding the pedal down for almost four seconds, which would have slowed his vehicle considerably. Even still, he hit the Caravan at an estimated 85 kilometres per hour. The obvious conclusion is he had been travelling well over the 80km/h speed limit.’

    ‘[excerpt] A psychiatric report prepared said Muzzo is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

    He will be sentenced on March 29.’
    credit: Joseph Brean | National Post

  5. I honestly believe that Marco Muzzo is indeed very sorry for his actions. It’s sad that the people to whom he wished to apologize, would not give him the opportunity to do so. Just because the man is wealthy, (via inheritance) is no excuse to punish him wayyyyyy more than the average person is punished. Ten to twelve years in prison for impaired driving is ridiculous, considering it’s equal to the sentence handed out to those who intentionally commit murder. This is way overboard. It’s nothing more than a warmup to the lawsuit they intend to pursue to make themselves wealthy at the expense of their loved ones loss of life. A sad state of affairs all around.
    IWT proponents on the other hand, do indeed deserve such a sentence or preferably even harsher.

  6. I honestly believe that Marco Muzzo is indeed very sorry for his actions. It’s sad that the people to whom he wished to apologize, would not give him the opportunity to do so. Just because the man is wealthy, (via inheritance) is no excuse to punish him wayyyyyy more than the average person is punished. Ten to twelve years in prison for impaired driving is ridiculous, considering it’s equal to the sentence handed out to those who intentionally commit murder. This is way overboard. It’s nothing more than a warmup to the lawsuit they intend to pursue to make themselves wealthy at the expense of their loved ones loss of life. A sad state of affairs all around.
    IWT proponents on the other hand, do indeed deserve such a sentence or preferably even harsher. They are well aware of the damage to human health they are proposing.

    • Mr. Muzzo will likely suffer from PTS the rest of his life or much like a life sentence. And the family will suffer from grief the rest of their lives.

      A tragic affair!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *