Well the report is out and unsurprisingly it's not anarchists, but .... gasp.... drunken hockey fans that are blamed.

The report does seem to be a bit of whitewash, not blaming anyone in particular, just saying it was poorly planned. It's the kind of double speak I expect from that greasy head of vanoc.

The report recommends much less booze. Great, so instead of more police to stop criminal behaviour, the rest of us get punished by being unable to buy beer A very typical Vancouver response.

Err, but it was drunken hockey fans. Or at least hockey fans (I suppose they're just as stupid when not drunk).

They (the police, the mayor etc) were blaming anarchists and outside instigators in the days after the riots. There was huge denial about this being a home-grown problem.

People shouldn't think they can hide in a massive crowd anymore. See if you can find someone you know or, perhaps yourself, in the picture.

http://www.gigapixel.com/image/gigapan-canucks-g7.html

From the executive summary of their report:

On June 15 there was a riot. People who either wanted to make trouble or thought it looked like
fun caused it and people who stayed to watch became a shield, and prolonged it.
The same number of people – estimates are unreliable but a consensus seems to have formed
around 155,000 – could be in the same place on another night and it would be very crowded but
there would be no trouble. The problem with that number, in that venue, is that when trouble
starts emergency services can’t get to it. A general sense of lawlessness prevails, causing anxiety
in some and excitement in others.
The question then is not the cause of the riot – troublemakers deliberately caused it – but the
conditions that gave

Still, don't let facts etc etc etc ...

I'm still curious to know how many people have been charged over this riot.

In the UK around 4000 people have now been charged in relation to the several days of looting and shenanigans but a cradle recently told me that Vancouver's finest had not yet charged anyone with relation to that riot?

Can this be confirmed?

Apparently the laws are different in Canada

And there isnt CCTV every 5 yards like in England.

(OOH 2k posts)

Just going by the news report. Blame local journalists for their poor reporting. Still, I guarentee that when the convictions start to happen, they will all be of drunken hockey fans. I will eat my hat if there are any professional rioters in the mix.

It doesn't matter anyway; the report is a total whitewash of the like to be expected by vanoc guy; somebody who is almost criminally dishonest imo. It lets everyone off the hook who had been involved in planning. The mayor, the police, etc.

It was obvious a riot was going to happen; it happened the last time. They should have planned for it. Actually, scrub that, apparently there was a plan according to the mayor (whose slopey shoulders are quite something), but nobody is taking responsibility for it. Jim Chu should not be in his job - the inexcusable lack of progress in convictions, the refusal to admit how many police were on duty, the failure to anticipate a very predictable riot. How incompetent do you have to be before you are sacked as chief of police?

I thought it was a all just a big video game. GTA V: Vancity, Looting and smashing stuff.

From a quick read of the report they do talk of some of the problems that led up to it:

1) There were more people downtown than expected or planned for.
2) Despite this Translink continued running and delivering people
3) In the end the police could not get to the early trouble spots because there were too many people.
4) A quarter of the crowd had assembled before security arrived to check people for booze.
5) Even after security arrived screening for booze was infective
6) When it started to kick off the police had to change from regular uniforms to riot gear.
7) Due to a combination of the size of the crowd and some faulty communication equipment it took the police 40 minutes to locate their riot gear and get tooled up.
8) The lack of police presence during that 40 minutes seemed to be a green light to the drunken yahoos to join in with the provocateurs.

Some conclusions:

1) Translink should have shut down once the size of the crowd became apparent.
2) Unlimited alcohol and large crowds don't mix. The lack of control of alcohol was a major factor in the riot.
3) If the police had been able to get to the initial flashpoints and control them then the larger riot would likely not have occurred.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around.

I know he is a public figure and so is not immune, but what has he done to deserve so much venom?

Game 7, on a mid week day, with free screenings, all around the down town business 'core'. and the report concludes that 'more people turned up than expected'?

everyone knew before game 1, that irrespective of the result, something negative and destructive was going to kick off at the end of a game 7 if there turned out to be one.

i was working that day along with 100s of thousands of other people and when i finished work, i didn't rush home like i normally would. we went to a friend's down-town home, watched the game and then afterwards, on the way to our home, we formed part of the 'casual observer' collective.

there was definitely an anarchistic element and they seemed to work very hard running around in their urban ninja outfits and marigold gloves, creating flash points of unfortunate behaviour. and then it can be said to be true that such naughtiness was sustained by idiots (frequently drunken idiots) wearing Canucks t-shirts etc.

from a socially aware perspective, i would suggest that no one group is responsible for what transpired. it took a combined effort to produce such an event of impeccable embarassment.

(none of this is to excuse the criminal behaviour of arseholes, whether in ski masks or kesler jerseys.)

What promotions are in store for the public servants involved?

I saw a couple of interviews with him about the death of that sled guy. He was extremely calculating in his responses - the way he twisted the narrative such that he was defending the actions of the luger (or whatever sport it was) rather than having to defend the design of the track. A despicable way to evade responsibility - even if he wasn't to blame, he shouldn't have done that. I've thought he was a ***** since.