Top Reasons NOT To Move To London (Ontario, Canada)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- Top Reasons NOT To Move To London (Ontario, Canada)
This video is on the top reason not to move to London! London Ontario Canada is a great city; but like any place - there are reason to move to London and reasons NOT to move to London. This will go over 4 negatives that might stop you from moving to London Ontario Canada.
✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅
We have so many people contacting us who are moving here to London, Ontario, Canada and we ABSOLUTELY love it! Honestly if you are moving or relocating here to London or surrounding area, we can make that transition so much easier on you!!
Reach out Day/Nights/Weekends whenever you want, we never stop working for you!!
☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️
CONTACT RYAN CRITS :
Cell: 519 551 4058
Email: ryancrits@royallepage.ca
☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️📞☎️
Learn More About London, Ontario, Canada:
london.ca/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,...
www.londontourism.ca/
www.fanshawec.ca/why-fanshawe...
www.thelondoner.ca/category/n...
Ryan Crits
Sales Representative
Royal LePage Binder Real Estate - 649
London, Ontario, Canada
London
London, Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
It is very crowded here born and raised in london that why I never go anywhere like festivals. I am so glad you mentioned public schools and elmentary schools even our daycares are over crowded. I have few friends they cant find any daycares for their toddlers
I keep hearing stabbings in Stratford when I heard that i was omg it such a small town and there are ppl stabbing other ppl. Yes the wirld has gone mad ppl are so fed up and tired of the cost of living. Mental health has risen so much. I really enjoy your videos Ryan I live in the westmount 3 story apartment its nice and cheap has a pool i am close to 3 major grocery stores. It a good area very family friendly, good schools, nice walking trails. Can you do another video on bike and walk, jog and running trails in london. Like springbank park, fanshawe park, komoka park gibbons park.
Gotta take the royal York road shortcut my guy!
I think Crime, Drugs and Homelessness are increasing everywhere in Canada. I believe it is a consequence of our attitudes towards those issues, and those of the federal government. Crime, Drugs and Homelessness are way up in every major city. Covid may have affected people's mental health temporarily, but we also saw a huge shift in sentiments towards crime in 2020. I've been studying the subject for 20 years and have good reason to believe that our waffling between tough on crime, and soft on crime, is just circling the drain. There are core issues at the very heart of criminal justice, basic premises like a 'guilty mind', and punitive measures based on 'just deserts', that made sense to 1st century theologians, but have no foundation in a modern rational society. We still treat those around us, and in the penal system, as though they were ephemeral souls commanding their bodies, even in an age where we have advanced neuroscience laboratories, and artificial intelligence that mirrors our very decision-making processes. And with this presupposition, we justify to ourselves punitive actions towards those we perceive as transgressors of our superior ethics. Take our street preachers, for example, they may have been suffering mental illness as Taz suggested, or some neurological defect, but we overlooked those possibilities and merely regarded them as freely willing agents who should know better, and are therefor deserving of mockery, ridicule and ostracization. We really need a knew theory of mind that takes into account what we know about human decision-making and doesn't arbitrarily insert spurious metaphysical paradigms like that of a guilty mind.
ur right.
@@StorMyKilo Thanks, this is an issue that is grossly overlooked. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged the issues tertiarily in R v. Ruzic. The case examined whether or not a defense of duress required that the accused be in the immediate threat of harm, or whether it was sufficient that they believed the threat to be imminent.
Throughout the case the issue is s. 17 of the Criminal Code - defense of duress, and s. 7 of the Charter - the right to liberty and to not have this violated by the state unless in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice (i.e. free-will and ability to discern right from wrong).
Ruzic was a drug mule but claimed to have been threatened with harm to her family in her country of origin. The case considered whether she would qualify as being under duress if such threats had been made.
"Although moral involuntariness does not negate the actus reus or mens rea of an offence, it is a principle which, like physical involuntariness, deserves protection under s. 7 of the Charter. It is a principle of fundamental justice that only voluntary conduct - behaviour that is the product of a free will and controlled body, unhindered by external constraints - should attract the penalty and stigma of criminal liability. Depriving a person of liberty and branding him or her with the stigma of criminal liability would infringe the principles of fundamental justice if the person did not have any realistic choice."
A similar case in the US highlights the issue even better. Powell v Texas, in which Powell was found to be drunk in a public place, but claimed that his chronic alcoholism deprived him of any realistic choice. We may also think of Vince Li - the greyhound bus killer - as another example of how 'free-will' factors into the determination of a crime. Lee was a schizophrenic and was acquitted on the basis that he had no realistic choice, and was remanded to Selkirk Mental Health instead of prison.
Clarence Darrow, the famous ACLU lawyer, wrote in his book Crime: Its Cause and Treatment (1922), about this very issue. He highlighted the act of theft and the discrepancy between a diagnosis of kleptomania, in which an individual was not held criminally liable, and a guilty mind that carried with it punitive punishment. Darrow rightly suggested that all crime is the result of exogenous factors. In the case of theft with criminal intent, the driving force is often poverty or youthful indiscretion and not a desire to be heinous for the sake of being heinous.
Darrow also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two well-to-do Ivey league students who murdered 14-year old Bobby Franks. Darrow argued that wartime propaganda that normalized violence, coupled with Loeb's superiority complex and lack of personal accountability, and Leopold's closeted homosexuality, were the true causes of Frank's death. Loeb had not had to deal with failure, or hardship of any kind, his life was on easy street, and he fancied himself untouchable, and because of this he pushed the limits on what he could get away with, to the point of killing someone just to see. Loeb gloated to the police even after being caught. It didn't register to him that he was now facing consequences. He had made an agreement with Leopold to explore his homosexual desires in secret - because it was not widely accepted - if Leopold agreed to the crime.
Darrow's point is that, if we peel back the layers of any crime, we are going to find some exogenous circumstances that rationally explain the crime, and this is where we should focus our efforts to treat crime. This does not mean that there ought to be no accountability, or that criminal law should not exist, only that there is no obvious separation between someone who is a free agent and someone who is experiencing duress or mental illness. We should approach all crime not as a punitive matter, but as a corrective matter. Instead of letting drug addicts roam the streets because they are victims of drug addiction, and conversely subjecting those we deem guilty to the harshest sentencing, we could approach all with the same goal of correcting their behavior.
Sorry if this seems like grandstanding, or if you didn't want to read it, it is just something I am very passionate about.
we need more government funding. our local economy is being drained and we can’t do anything about it. PS i want more people here, we need more resources tho
More ppl are you serious there more than enough ppl in London did you not watch the video. Ppl can't even get family doctors here because of the increasing numbers of ppl moving here.
@@deandoxtator7137 that’s why i’m asking for more resources… you want your city to stay small? that’s why nobodies helping us because we don’t want this