What happened to the BC air ambulance post?

[InsertCoffee]

20 hours ago, Razorback said:

Bald allegations are literally an attack.

What allegations? I said I didn't know why the 169 was the preferred aircraft...

[Razorback]

6 hours ago, InsertCoffee said:

What allegations? I said I didn't know why the 169 was the preferred aircraft...

Implying bribery and nepotism on a public forum citing separate, indirectly related matters purports to be an opinion, capable of being construed by an audience to have a factual basis.

Just because something happened over  ten years ago with the 139s in Ontario and someone is related within departments involved doesn’t make for a cogent reason to bring the matters up with this civil dispute.  It appears disingenuous at best. 

[Seniorwrench]

Y'all got to give this topic up..

It's quite obvious this is a very very smelly contract awarding with huge protectionism going on by censorship within this forum........ Give it up already!

[CM119]

50 minutes ago, Seniorwrench said:

Y'all got to give this topic up..

It's quite obvious this is a very very smelly contract awarding with huge protectionism going on by censorship within this forum........ Give it up already!

I agree, I don’t know why so many people think it’s their direct business.  Definitely not productive attacking anyone online that’s for sure. 

[InsertCoffee]

16 hours ago, Razorback said:

Implying bribery and nepotism on a public forum citing separate, indirectly related matters purports to be an opinion, capable of being construed by an audience to have a factual basis.

Just because something happened over  ten years ago with the 139s in Ontario and someone is related within departments involved doesn’t make for a cogent reason to bring the matters up with this civil dispute.  It appears disingenuous at best. 

You picked a weird way to enter the conversation, why didn't you start with that instead of just saying 'who cares'?

 

And I guess we'll find out if there's merit to those accusations, I'm sure the relevant parties will have their days in court. Suggesting that the public doesn't deserve the truth will always be a bad argument.

 

Although what's this thing about someone related within departments, that sounds interesting...

[InsertCoffee]

13 hours ago, CM119 said:

I agree, I don’t know why so many people think it’s their direct business.  Definitely not productive attacking anyone online that’s for sure. 

Because the public deserves the truth? 

 

Because the taxpayers don't deserve to overpay for an essential service?

 

Because we should be trying to ensure $544,000,000 contracts don't get partially awarded to huge international companies when there are Canadian operators who can provide the same service?

 

 

[Razorback]

6 hours ago, InsertCoffee said:

You picked a weird way to enter the conversation, why didn't you start with that instead of just saying 'who cares'?

 

And I guess we'll find out if there's merit to those accusations, I'm sure the relevant parties will have their days in court. Suggesting that the public doesn't deserve the truth will always be a bad argument.

 

Although what's this thing about someone related within departments, that sounds interesting...

On March 13, 2024 InsertCoffee said:

”

Is it untrue that someone at Ascent is married to someone involved in the procurement process? I dunno but it would be pretty easy to prove or disprove.”

 

not related but married to (my error)

[InsertCoffee]

5 hours ago, Razorback said:

On March 13, 2024 InsertCoffee said:

”

Is it untrue that someone at Ascent is married to someone involved in the procurement process? I dunno but it would be pretty easy to prove or disprove.”

 

not related but married to (my error)

Oh...that's an interesting conflict of interest, no?

[CM119]

11 hours ago, InsertCoffee said:

Because the public deserves the truth? 

 

Because the taxpayers don't deserve to overpay for an essential service?

 

Because we should be trying to ensure $544,000,000 contracts don't get partially awarded to huge international companies when there are Canadian operators who can provide the same service?

 

 

Truth, not speculation, hyperbole and dog whistles lacking any credible facts beyond reasonable doubt.  This is not the way to “ensure” anything but online confusion. 

[InsertCoffee]

11 minutes ago, CM119 said:

Truth, not speculation, hyperbole and dog whistles lacking any credible facts beyond reasonable doubt.  This is not the way to “ensure” anything but online confusion. 

You seem weirdly against anyone looking into this contact. Why fight against more information?