Sunday, 12 February 2012

What Are You Saying ?????

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A Pitfall May Not Be What You Think...On The Other...":

Which is why Aurora's first question on viewing the Georgina scene was who owned the Pefferlaw paper .Turned out it was decent people and the letters were published. Could have been very different. The Forum is quiet today hopefully working together.
Council meeting is set for 7 PM on 13th

**************
What are you saying?

That  letters to the editor from John Maclean  raising the issue of responsibility for errors and ommissions in the creation of Grossi's Mountain were NOT published in the Georgina Advocate?

They were in fact  published in the Pefferlaw News?

Which does not enjoy a lucrative contract with the municipality.

Was it the Georgina Advocate, the paper WITH the lucrative contract, that DIDN"T print the letters but did editorialise in  scolding tone  and condescending;  telling  Georgina residents angered by  the Mayor's decision, made behind closed doors, to sue the letter writer with his own tax dollars, against the country's laws. the resident who dared to  criticise the Mayor within his  Charter Rights, that Mayor and Council are to be commended for rescinding the decision made in secret and the residents should move on and get over it????

DRAT........now I have to click on all those links to try and make sense of  this  whole affair.
at

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous12 February 2012 at 09:21

    Pefferlaw News are the White Hats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12 February 2012 at 10:35

    The Advocate as well as the Pefferlaw Post have both published two separate but similar letters to the editor from Mr McLean -- "one that appeared in the Advocate Sept. 15 and a second letter in the Pefferlaw Post Sept. 24" --- I would argue that neither of them could possibly be interpreted as the Mayor's suit alleges (and I will continue calling it the Mayor's), and neither are as blatantly libellous as the letter to the editor the mayor wrote himself in this weeks pefferlaw post. He is simultaneously trying to "clear his own good name" (whatever of that he had left anyway) and goad McLean into a legal fight on his own turf by calling him a liar, thereby turning the political fervour against McLean and securing the financial backing of the town legally.

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.