Tuesday, September 6, 2011


The Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot Review came out...

Found in the 101 pages, on page 74 of this link to be precise is the proof that I was right!  71.3% of the people arrested (or who have turned themselves in) were NOT FROM THE CITY OF VANCOUVER!

Less than ONE THIRD!

Honestly... I'm not stupid!


yarnpiggy said...


But if you look at the population of Vancouver vs. Metro Vancouver, Vancouverites were a wee smidge over-represented.

2011 Census isn't in yet, of course, but StatsCan's 2006 figures:

Population of Vancouver proper: 578,041
Population of Metro Vancouver: 2,116,581

So, Vancouver proper represents 27% of the population of Metro Vancouver, and the 'burbs for 73%.

Don't have figures on how many business located in the city proper are owned and operated by suburbanites, how much of the City of Vancouver's financial or cultural wealth comes from outside the city proper, how many VPD members are from the 'burbs, etc. etc.

It really isn't as simple as 'us' vs. 'them'.

P'cess said...

What difference does it make who the store owners are? The people arrested (as in, those committing the crimes) were 73% not from the City of Vancouver. Where the wealth comes from is neither here nor there!

Who cares where the cultural wealth comes from? Those committing the crimes were criminals that don't live in the City of Vancouver! That doesn't make Vancouver less culturally rich... it doesn't even make sense!

When we're talking about the percentage of residents vs vistors who were committing the crimes (which is what I WAS talking about), it is as simple as us vs them. Us was 28% of the arrests. Them was 73% of the arrests. It's as simple as that!

yarnpiggy said...

Two super-pedantic points, because I'm like that:

1. 73+28 = 101.

2. Criminal = someone convicted of a crime. Not one person has been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Which is, of course, another issue altogether -- I think it's ridiculous those responsible haven't been charged yet.


I guess my comment was a bit too 'bigger picture' for your taste. Obviously one's house/apt/cardboard location isn't up for debate. So if the fact that the report confirms that a large majority of the rioters have their dwelling place outside the City of Vancouver than in it makes you feel vindicated, then cool.

But I don't think anybody would have thought otherwise. Given the population figures, and the fact that the City of Vancouver has borders that are easily crossed, and isn't some kind of Gaza Strip, it's kind of a no-brainer.

I'm pretty sure anyone in the Western world (i.e., places where suburban life is the norm) watching news footage of the riots weren't thinking, 'Oh, people living in the City of Vancouver, not the suburbs, they are horrible people.' They get it.

I guess I just don't see the point of your concern.

My point was that on a more meaningful level, there isn't as sharp a division between the city proper and the suburbs.

When I lived in North Vancouver, I didn't consider myself a 'visitor' to the City of Vancouver, where I spent more than half my waking hours. When the riots happened, I was pissed off that a bunch of hooligans were damaging 'my' city.

Mind you, since you aren't from anywhere in the Metro Vancouver area at all, but only a transplant, I guess it would be difficult for you to understand how a suburbanite could consider themselves part of Vancouver. ;-)

I just don't think the us vs. them attitude really gets anybody anywhere. In any situation.

But I'm cool with agreeing to disagree, if you are. :o)