Do some snooping around ceaser, PTSD is caused by a number of things, not just life threatening events.

Cut the Commish’s umbilical cord as Deputy Minister. He’s a cop, be a cop.

Institute a independent board of non partisan administrative oversight.

There is a start, and it didn’t take me 10 months to figure that out.

In the regulation of employee activities, are we to surmise that the Commissioner having an affair is acceptable, just not with an employee in a specific work set? How could this be rationally stated in a blanket policy?

Let us not forget the altar of “optics”, a topic to which much ink is devoted. Is this the bugbear he is trying to quell? Can someone looked upon as an adulterer be also looked upon as a model employee? The reporting of ones romantic situations is perhaps good optics, but what are the consequences if one reports a relationship with another at a distant work site while being married, engaged, separated, or in divorce proceedings? Will the morals unit descend with psychologists in hand to “correct” behavior, nuancing that somewhere down the line they may commit some form of moral, legal, or administrative breach?

If the cadets are taught the rights and wrongs at the base level and instructed in the consequences of bad and unexceptional behavior, then the questionable investigations later would not be required by the forces to help explain.

All that would happen would be the process of sending the member home to watch the news, without pay.

This PTSD claims being made by members is also questionable as you life must have been in danger. Most certainly sex does not seem to be a life threatening event.

Moralizing should not be part of the process regarding work place romantic relationships. The fact that some members are married or single should not concern the RCMP unless it interferes with that person’s ability to perform his or her duties.

This would be the same as a member who drinks a bottle of alcohol a day. If it does not interfere with his/her work then it is none of the RCMP’s business.

My examples will not include names or martial status. Facilitators at Depot became romantically involved with cadets. This would be wrong because there could be favouritism or threats regarding the graduation of the cadet. Once the cadet graduated and was not under the supervision of the facilitator then the relationship should no longer concern the RCMP.

You may remember a case that was reported in the press regarding female members on a course allegedly being passed for sexual favours. If there were sexual relations after the course then it is no longer the business of the RCMP.

Harassment or assault of the opposite gender is a whole different topic.

The problem here is the moralizing and dictatorship approach, as well as an “all size fits all approach”.

The RCMP must asked, what is the goal? If it is the protection from abuse or favouritism and the protection of others; the RCMP has to enact policy to reflect the goal.

This approach, as in other cases regarding the Commissioner “appears” to be dealt with a condescending slant.

People will support RCMP leaders, warts and all if they believe that the leaders care about the well being of the members.

The Commissioner may care very deeply but he must convince the members.

Readers; judge as you shall be judged.