You might say it’s our interpretation of Surrey’s policing transition mess, now in its fifth year, that it has inflicted and continues to inflict severe intellectual and gastronomic indigestion on Surrey residents.
Kind of like sea-sickness.
Consider it more a statement of fact, although a bit purple with the imagery.
At this time of writing, all hands on deck were expecting Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth to bring his decision to port sometime this week as to, once and for all, who will police Surrey into the foreseeable future – the Surrey RCMP or the Surrey Police Service.
READ ALSO: Councillor calls on Surrey mayor to resign, remove press release from city’s website
As we’ve waited, a steady flow of acrimony, ‘shocking developments,’ calls for resignations, insults, confusion, bombast, rude and childish behaviour, and sophistry have washed up on Surrey’s shores, not to mention the privilege of collectively paying roughly $8 million in taxes per month to maintain two police forces. Arrrr, pirates say.
This perfect storm will some day subside. But for how long the upset will last, though, is anyone’s guess.
Meanwhile, as everyone stares into the deep, a new beast has crawled up from the abyss and into Surrey’s political lexicon: Interpretation.
Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke recently invoked the term to anchor her perhaps pollyanna position that a boatload of mayors approved a motion to support Surrey in its bid to keep the RCMP here despite the author of the motion, Delta Mayor George Harvie, indicating otherwise.
Despite the sea of disagreement Surrey’s policing transition is, surely we can all agree that politicians must not rely on “interpretation” in an effort to ride out a storm.
It’s just not seaworthy policy for public governance.
– Now-Leader
edit@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter