It's polling time again - where CRA quarterly polling should be in the field.
I am satisfied however to reveal information from other scientific polling which has been taking place over the past couple of weeks.
I have seen the information myself and it's showing that the PC's are now in third place.
The information shows the Tories in the teens - chasing the NDP for second. The Liberals remain in the lead.
It also shows that support for Danny Williams as the best leader for the PC party sits at over 60% with female voters support for the former Premier at over 70%. Davis is comes in at 12% with Kent at 7%. The Tories have not taken to their new leader.
On the issue of when our next election should be - close to 50% wanted it before now or this summer while 40% are willing to wait until the fall. There is NO appetite to extend beyond September.
The polling also shows Earl McCurdy is quickly catching Paul Davis as second choice for Premier. Dwight Ball remains in the lead as choice for Premier.
If these numbers reflect reality - and I believe they do - this government does not have the moral authority to keep governing and a summer election should be held.
These polls have sampled over a thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the numbers do not look good for the PC's.
It certainly answers why MHA Sandy Collins has been trash talking on Twitter and why the NDP appears to be aiming at the Liberals.
The PC's are protesting too much about the Liberal platform - it is telling me that the numbers I have reviewed are accurate.
Showing posts with label sandy collins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sandy collins. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Role of the Media - Dunphy death
This morning - fourth day after the shooting death of Don Dunphy.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Glaring inconsistency - did it cost a life?
I have been blogging and tweeting for the past few days on the need for an inquiry on the death of Don Dunphy.
Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.
One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.
Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.
I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.
Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.
If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.
Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?
Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.
If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.
If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.
The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.
Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.
We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.
Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.
One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.
Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.
I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.
Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.
If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.
Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?
Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.
If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.
If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.
The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.
Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.
We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The shooting aftermath and truth
This afternoon we had an "update" from the RCMP regarding the shooting of Don Dunphy by an RNC officer on Easter Sunday.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
"Sources told the CBC"
It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Judicial Inquiry or Coroner's Inquest needed
This is a very difficult and disturbing post I write. (NEW INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF POST)
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Monday, January 27, 2014
PC Convention - putting more lipstick on a pig
For a Party that has avoided a real leadership contest in almost two decades - 19 years - the choice of a delegate style event seems underwhelming.
In a country where provincial and federal parties are opening up the leadership process to all but children - the Newfoundland and Labrador Tories are determined to keep this in their controlled house.
The question is why?
When the Party was at its height - in popularity - somewhere holding on to the coattails of Danny Williams - people were kept at bay from challenging the "I don't want this job" interim Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
At first there were rumors that several caucus members would throw their hats in - then some speculation on outside interests. Brad Cabana paid his money - but was blocked from even a challenge - to what the party interests wanted. In the end - no takers.
So now the field has become wide open (so to speak) for any select individuals to step forward. As mentioned in an earlier post - I believe this process is taking on such flurry now because particular corporate interests wee unsuccessful in getting their chosen Liberal leader.
Such as all this is - why shut the people of the province out? Why not allow all to vote who want to vote? Why use delegates on a floor instead of the more progressive and open approach of letting everybody cast their own votes?
Instead of over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians casting individual votes - as was the way with the Liberal Party - late last year - we are going to see about 500 district delegates and some ex-officio's engage in some good old backroom politics and deals.
For a party that says it wants to listen to people more, engage them more, and be more open and accountable - their first act of contrition - is to control the party once again from within.
The slight of hand thing has already been set in place with wannabe - really wannabe - Cabinet Minister - Sandy Collins - referring to the Liberal Convention this way "we should strive to repeat your process. I really liked the sounds of crickets in the half filled room. Tumble weed nice touch."
Sandy has taken over from Minister Kent who used to do the useless hacking until he was placed in Cabinet. Of course like children - if they see another child being rewarded for bad behavior - similar behavior may follow.
In either case - what the Liberal process did was allow everybody to cast their own private vote and to choose a second third and fourth choice. The fact is over 20,000 people participated directly in that democratic process.
Collin's instructed position is that we would rather stuff 500 in a room via delegate selection - so the optics would be better. He likes the sounds of cheers and wants to be taken to a room and be smoozed into voting for one or another.
The 500 or so who attend may well represent only 1000 or less people. You and I will never know unless we attend each and every district association meeting.
In our democracy you don't get a separate vote for the Premier - so a leadership contest is the only inclusion there is. When you strip that to a delegate convention - you may party hardy and hoop and holler - but you are doing nothing to directly involve tens thousands of people.
So here we go again - the method of communications - is key - not the message. That's why they say Dunderdale was dumped. Pile people in a room - they are delegates - therefore they should have their expenses paid. Pile people in a room - looks like the party is growing in its enthusiasm. Pile people into a room and feed the media cameras.
Let's not forget - not that long ago people piled into a room for now former Premier Kathy Dunderdale. The media reported that all was happy in Toryland. In fact Telegram reporter James McLeod headlined "Support for Premier rock solid at convention". This was September - just 4 months ago.
Now after 19 years of no leadership contest - after appointing and anointing the chosen - the Tories are going to the backrooms to pick a leader.
The message has not changed - the Tories are putting more lipstick on a pig.
In a country where provincial and federal parties are opening up the leadership process to all but children - the Newfoundland and Labrador Tories are determined to keep this in their controlled house.
The question is why?
When the Party was at its height - in popularity - somewhere holding on to the coattails of Danny Williams - people were kept at bay from challenging the "I don't want this job" interim Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
At first there were rumors that several caucus members would throw their hats in - then some speculation on outside interests. Brad Cabana paid his money - but was blocked from even a challenge - to what the party interests wanted. In the end - no takers.
So now the field has become wide open (so to speak) for any select individuals to step forward. As mentioned in an earlier post - I believe this process is taking on such flurry now because particular corporate interests wee unsuccessful in getting their chosen Liberal leader.
Such as all this is - why shut the people of the province out? Why not allow all to vote who want to vote? Why use delegates on a floor instead of the more progressive and open approach of letting everybody cast their own votes?
Instead of over 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians casting individual votes - as was the way with the Liberal Party - late last year - we are going to see about 500 district delegates and some ex-officio's engage in some good old backroom politics and deals.
For a party that says it wants to listen to people more, engage them more, and be more open and accountable - their first act of contrition - is to control the party once again from within.
The slight of hand thing has already been set in place with wannabe - really wannabe - Cabinet Minister - Sandy Collins - referring to the Liberal Convention this way "we should strive to repeat your process. I really liked the sounds of crickets in the half filled room. Tumble weed nice touch."
Sandy has taken over from Minister Kent who used to do the useless hacking until he was placed in Cabinet. Of course like children - if they see another child being rewarded for bad behavior - similar behavior may follow.
In either case - what the Liberal process did was allow everybody to cast their own private vote and to choose a second third and fourth choice. The fact is over 20,000 people participated directly in that democratic process.
Collin's instructed position is that we would rather stuff 500 in a room via delegate selection - so the optics would be better. He likes the sounds of cheers and wants to be taken to a room and be smoozed into voting for one or another.
The 500 or so who attend may well represent only 1000 or less people. You and I will never know unless we attend each and every district association meeting.
In our democracy you don't get a separate vote for the Premier - so a leadership contest is the only inclusion there is. When you strip that to a delegate convention - you may party hardy and hoop and holler - but you are doing nothing to directly involve tens thousands of people.
So here we go again - the method of communications - is key - not the message. That's why they say Dunderdale was dumped. Pile people in a room - they are delegates - therefore they should have their expenses paid. Pile people in a room - looks like the party is growing in its enthusiasm. Pile people into a room and feed the media cameras.
Let's not forget - not that long ago people piled into a room for now former Premier Kathy Dunderdale. The media reported that all was happy in Toryland. In fact Telegram reporter James McLeod headlined "Support for Premier rock solid at convention". This was September - just 4 months ago.
Now after 19 years of no leadership contest - after appointing and anointing the chosen - the Tories are going to the backrooms to pick a leader.
The message has not changed - the Tories are putting more lipstick on a pig.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Collins shows loss of Premier in vain for PC's
Newfoundland and Labrador has many serious issues on the table. Not the least of which are the Muskrat Falls legacy of economic horror, health care, the Auditor General's findings, chronic unemployment and continued secrecy in government. The governing PC's have a few serious issues of their own.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
@SandyRCollins I notice Kathy didn't give Sandi a hug or kiss as she left..-
@BradCabana Bradley! It's you! Have you heard the news?...there's a leadership race coming up? You in? -
-
@BradCabana You left?....or you were ignored to the point where it was just kinda...how do I say...awkward? @SandyRCollins@BradCabana what an interesting yet commonly arrogant response. Business as usual.@SandyRCollins You mean you cheated so publicly that the country laughed out loud, and it was...awkward-
-
@SandyRCollins Ya, akward to break the rules to get the woman in,and then akward to stab her in the back to get out -
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time 'round k? @SandyRCollins@MurfAD@BradCabana@NfldAnchor@mclabradore hI'll pay 5000 for you to stop using"k" like a child on a playground. grow up- Interesting offer MT@SandyRCollins:
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time -
@PeterCBC@BradCabana Peter, if he accepts I may have to ask you to spot me $5k...that cool? -
-
@PeterCBC@BradCabana True, I hear though one of those positions just opened up:) Want me to drop your name? - you.
#nlpoli
Sandy Collins
@SandyRCollins@hydroqueen@MurfAD@PeterCBC@BradCabana How Sue Kelland-Dyer-ish of you to be trolling. Are you ever NOT on Twitter?
Rock Solid Politics
Sue Kelland-Dyer
Peter Cowan
Friday, March 29, 2013
Our Secret Society - Who is the head Puppeteer?
Bill 29
Untendered Contracts
90 million $$$$ ????
Land deals
Resource giveaways
The Miracle Budget
Finding 1 billion in a month
The political hum in the air is undeniable - it is very stinky.
It stinks to the high heavens.
So the PC caucus need not know about the secret commercially sensitive $90 million dollar talks?
Will these MHA's vote for a budget when they are not privy to all the details?
Will these Tory Backbenchers stand up and really be counted or will they act as they are being treated - like garbage littering the seats at the peoples house?
Little Miss Bluffitt these days seems to be aloof to polls and commentary on her government. She has risen above the criticism and is going to do what's best for us - as if we are 4 year olds wanting to cross the street.
"I cannot govern by polls" she says with a flip of the head and the shrug of a shoulder. The same woman who heads a herd of non-scientific poll fixers, riggers, party puppets?
The strings are becoming more and more apparent as days go by. The upper echelon of the PC party must be getting ready to pounce or getting ready to leave as the next election draws near. I suppose that will depend on if they got their fair share of the public pie.
Eliminate the justice system?
It matters not who is in control of project management at Muskrat - it matters not if we are told a thing about the billions she and her posse is spending of our money.
So who's getting another little piece of education pie this time? Are we once again trying to keep the population as uneducated as possible?
And yet still 48 members of the House of Assembly - no cuts - no political staffers worried about getting the blue slip.
Based on those oil projections driving Muskrat Falls - and the oil projections driving our deficit - we had better bring this government down - sooner rather than later. If enough protest and speak out - she will have to go. Democracy must be restored - let your voice be heard.
She is a liar.
Dunderdale uttered the following in the House of Assembly on March 21-2013
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, only the Leader of the Liberal Opposition would have the face to get up here and talk about somebody calling in to a radio poll, when they in their time in government had two full-time people in the Premier's office whose only job – Tom Hann and Sue Kelland-Dyer, let me remind people of the Province – was to call in to Open Line to carry the party line, Mr. Speaker, and to influence people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.
The tip of the iceberg - what does the woman say in private settings and meetings? Well everybody will soon find out. Pure desperation!
Come out from under the protection of the House of Assembly - where all things you say about private citizens are not able to be dealt with in the courts - and repeat the messages.
Don't forget those other points and observations you make - when in "appropriate" company.
To the boys in the backroom - Keep those Solid Gold ideas flowing...
Untendered Contracts
90 million $$$$ ????
Land deals
Resource giveaways
The Miracle Budget
Finding 1 billion in a month
The political hum in the air is undeniable - it is very stinky.
It stinks to the high heavens.
So the PC caucus need not know about the secret commercially sensitive $90 million dollar talks?
Will these MHA's vote for a budget when they are not privy to all the details?
Will these Tory Backbenchers stand up and really be counted or will they act as they are being treated - like garbage littering the seats at the peoples house?
Little Miss Bluffitt these days seems to be aloof to polls and commentary on her government. She has risen above the criticism and is going to do what's best for us - as if we are 4 year olds wanting to cross the street.
"I cannot govern by polls" she says with a flip of the head and the shrug of a shoulder. The same woman who heads a herd of non-scientific poll fixers, riggers, party puppets?
The strings are becoming more and more apparent as days go by. The upper echelon of the PC party must be getting ready to pounce or getting ready to leave as the next election draws near. I suppose that will depend on if they got their fair share of the public pie.
Eliminate the justice system?
It matters not who is in control of project management at Muskrat - it matters not if we are told a thing about the billions she and her posse is spending of our money.
So who's getting another little piece of education pie this time? Are we once again trying to keep the population as uneducated as possible?
And yet still 48 members of the House of Assembly - no cuts - no political staffers worried about getting the blue slip.
Based on those oil projections driving Muskrat Falls - and the oil projections driving our deficit - we had better bring this government down - sooner rather than later. If enough protest and speak out - she will have to go. Democracy must be restored - let your voice be heard.
She is a liar.
Dunderdale uttered the following in the House of Assembly on March 21-2013
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, only the Leader of the Liberal Opposition would have the face to get up here and talk about somebody calling in to a radio poll, when they in their time in government had two full-time people in the Premier's office whose only job – Tom Hann and Sue Kelland-Dyer, let me remind people of the Province – was to call in to Open Line to carry the party line, Mr. Speaker, and to influence people of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.
The tip of the iceberg - what does the woman say in private settings and meetings? Well everybody will soon find out. Pure desperation!
Come out from under the protection of the House of Assembly - where all things you say about private citizens are not able to be dealt with in the courts - and repeat the messages.
Don't forget those other points and observations you make - when in "appropriate" company.
To the boys in the backroom - Keep those Solid Gold ideas flowing...
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Polygraph in order? Kent and Osborne
Which one would agree to a polygraph - Osborne or Kent?
This is an important test and both should be asked if they would agree. Kent is lobbying hard to sit in the Dunderdale Cabinet and is prepared to throw himself under Kathy's big blue bus if necessary. Osborne says he cannot take Dunderdale's leadership and no longer recognizes his own party.
Osborne says Kent spoke to him about concerns regarding the Premier's ability to lead and Kent says he did not.
Dunderdale for her part explained the road to Cabinet is through developing a relationship with her. That would leave Kent in a "deadwood" zone if he privately questioned the queen of the Tories ability to do her job.
It's bad enough that Dunderdale's most stated objective is that sucking up to her is the road to success - but when one of those kissing #*# might actually be doing so for the cameras while taking a swipe in the shadows - the plot thickens.
So this is an important truth. We don't want the convenient truth - we want the whole truth.
Is is disgruntled Tom or desperate Steve?
Let's see which one is willing to swear to it or be tested by a machine that could ultimately build or break political careers.
St
This is an important test and both should be asked if they would agree. Kent is lobbying hard to sit in the Dunderdale Cabinet and is prepared to throw himself under Kathy's big blue bus if necessary. Osborne says he cannot take Dunderdale's leadership and no longer recognizes his own party.
Osborne says Kent spoke to him about concerns regarding the Premier's ability to lead and Kent says he did not.
Dunderdale for her part explained the road to Cabinet is through developing a relationship with her. That would leave Kent in a "deadwood" zone if he privately questioned the queen of the Tories ability to do her job.
It's bad enough that Dunderdale's most stated objective is that sucking up to her is the road to success - but when one of those kissing #*# might actually be doing so for the cameras while taking a swipe in the shadows - the plot thickens.
So this is an important truth. We don't want the convenient truth - we want the whole truth.
Is is disgruntled Tom or desperate Steve?
Let's see which one is willing to swear to it or be tested by a machine that could ultimately build or break political careers.
St
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Damn Kirby's Tweet - The Premier should Resign!
MHA Dale Kirby said that somebody lied in the House of Assembly! Oh my Stop the Presses!
And imagine he did not even identify who he was talking about!! Stop the Presses!
Kathy Dunderdale said not to long ago: “The criticism can sometimes be relentless, and from a small handful of people, but they tend to be very loud and scathing, and personal, and mean”.
These comments were about who? She did not name the individuals and therefore she labelled all local bloggers and people who call open-line programs.
I want her to apologize in the House of Assembly to the people of this province. I want the Premier to acknowledge that her remarks were reckless, unfair, and unwarranted.
It is more important that she apologize as she was making the comments about the people she is employed by. Absolute insubordination by our Premier.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS?
In my opinion the purpose is to deflect from her government's dismal performance on all levels. The purpose is to deflect away from the disaster on the Burin Peninsula and other rural areas of our province. It is to deflect away from the collapse of our fishing industry, and the fiasco which is the Emera deal. It is to deflect away from the loss of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, the loss of jobs in Federal parks and other federal offices. It is to deflect away from the Search and Rescue inadequacies and most importantly away from the loss of a young Labradorian's life.
AND NOW?
A Newfoundland fisherman gets ill at sea and the crew calls for a Doctor's assistance. The crew seeks to determine if they need a medevac. Their call goes to Italy! That's right people Italy! The crew is unable to get anywhere with the call and are left stranded with their medical emergency. Meanwhile...
From the Canadian Forces: 09/05/2012
HALIFAX – A CH-149 Cormorant helicopter from 103 (Search and Rescue) Squadron, Gander NF and a CC-130 Hercules aircraft from 413 (Transport and Rescue) Squadron from Greenwood NS are currently involved in a medical evacuation for a crewmember aboard Spanish fishing vessel, F/V Calvao, located approximately 445 kilometres southeast off St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Both aircraft were tasked early Wednesday afternoon, when Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) in Halifax received a request from the United States Coast Guard ‘s (USCG) Rescue Coordination Centre in Boston to perform the medevac, as the vessel is in the Boston Search and Rescue region but Canadian assets were in closer proximity at the time of the incident.
This event is an excellent example of the close coordination that exists between US and Canadian Search & Rescue assets on a daily basis. To offer context, the distance from St John’s NF to the vessel is slightly further than the distance between Halifax and Sydney NS (434 km).
The Premier and her Cabinet should all be removed from office - the absolute dismantling of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the treatment of our province in this nation is all a result of the Premier, her Cabinet, and Caucus. Anything for the loan guarantee right? Who and what is driving this? We demand to know!
Premier Dunderdale if you want to deal with the word LIAR - deal with Stephen Harper who is a LIAR. His lies to this province will cost us billions. Deal with that!
And imagine he did not even identify who he was talking about!! Stop the Presses!
Kathy Dunderdale said not to long ago: “The criticism can sometimes be relentless, and from a small handful of people, but they tend to be very loud and scathing, and personal, and mean”.
These comments were about who? She did not name the individuals and therefore she labelled all local bloggers and people who call open-line programs.
I want her to apologize in the House of Assembly to the people of this province. I want the Premier to acknowledge that her remarks were reckless, unfair, and unwarranted.
It is more important that she apologize as she was making the comments about the people she is employed by. Absolute insubordination by our Premier.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS?
In my opinion the purpose is to deflect from her government's dismal performance on all levels. The purpose is to deflect away from the disaster on the Burin Peninsula and other rural areas of our province. It is to deflect away from the collapse of our fishing industry, and the fiasco which is the Emera deal. It is to deflect away from the loss of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, the loss of jobs in Federal parks and other federal offices. It is to deflect away from the Search and Rescue inadequacies and most importantly away from the loss of a young Labradorian's life.
AND NOW?
A Newfoundland fisherman gets ill at sea and the crew calls for a Doctor's assistance. The crew seeks to determine if they need a medevac. Their call goes to Italy! That's right people Italy! The crew is unable to get anywhere with the call and are left stranded with their medical emergency. Meanwhile...
From the Canadian Forces: 09/05/2012
HALIFAX – A CH-149 Cormorant helicopter from 103 (Search and Rescue) Squadron, Gander NF and a CC-130 Hercules aircraft from 413 (Transport and Rescue) Squadron from Greenwood NS are currently involved in a medical evacuation for a crewmember aboard Spanish fishing vessel, F/V Calvao, located approximately 445 kilometres southeast off St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Both aircraft were tasked early Wednesday afternoon, when Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) in Halifax received a request from the United States Coast Guard ‘s (USCG) Rescue Coordination Centre in Boston to perform the medevac, as the vessel is in the Boston Search and Rescue region but Canadian assets were in closer proximity at the time of the incident.
This event is an excellent example of the close coordination that exists between US and Canadian Search & Rescue assets on a daily basis. To offer context, the distance from St John’s NF to the vessel is slightly further than the distance between Halifax and Sydney NS (434 km).
The Premier and her Cabinet should all be removed from office - the absolute dismantling of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the treatment of our province in this nation is all a result of the Premier, her Cabinet, and Caucus. Anything for the loan guarantee right? Who and what is driving this? We demand to know!
Premier Dunderdale if you want to deal with the word LIAR - deal with Stephen Harper who is a LIAR. His lies to this province will cost us billions. Deal with that!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)