"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Friday, 4 December 2015


I LRespect for the Office has left a new comment on your post "THE PURPOSE OF MONUMENT ?": 

"I re-call (sic) a recent photo of a small ,very round elderly woman, looking ridiculous in a uniform tailored to her excessively curvaceous form, too big at the neck, shoulders and sleeves. She confided she had to be persuaded to wear it. "

Do you mean Her Honour Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario? 

Posted by Respect for the Office to  Our Town and Its Business at 4 December 2015 at 13:37


i thought it was most likely the Lieutenant-Governor  of Ontario but  as noted I did not re-call her name 
and I did not want to be disrespectful of the Lieutenant  Governor. Especially  since she was obviously aware  the  uniform thing was a bad idea. Those  tunics are horrendously expensive .She would be conscious of that as well. 

The most spectacular photo of the Queen was in uniform riding side-saddle behind her father for 
Trooping of the Guard at  Whitehall, down the Mall from Buckingham Palace. The Queen  was in her early twenties then. Just a slip of a girl. 

She wore a red tunic , a hat with the brim upturned at the side and fastened with a cockade. Her  hair was chestnut- brown the same colour as Winston ,the horse she was riding. Her black riding  breeches and shiny boots were draped over with a  velvety black riding skirt. 

The Queen is also a very small lady but she never looked more magnificent than atop that huge beautiful horse. She also had a right to wear the uniform. She was a member of the Women's Armed Services  during the latter part of the war. She was photographed once wearing army coveralls messing about inside the engine of a geep. 

suspect the Honorable Elizabeth Dowdeswell will not allow herself to be persuaded against her better judgement again by some silly military man that she should wear a uniform. 

I also doubt the two veteran soldiers of the Afghan Campaign had any choice in whether they allowed themselves to be used by  Rangers' Honorary Colonel to support his senseless campaign to have a military weapon displayed at our Cenotaph. They would have their orders. 

The fact Honorary Colonel Kirk Corkery has never seen armed services does not excuse bad judgement for using soldiers that way.

Everything  I know about the Honorary Colonel,I read, like everyone else , in the local press. Nothing underhanded has been suggested about his appointment  in this space. 

The last comment reads too much into things. Furthermore, the determined attempt to get a war machine displayed  at Aurora Cenotaph against the wishes of many in the community does nothing to strengthen ties between community and  military. 

Added to the occupation of a multi-million dollar  town-owned property, needed by the town, at the expense of the town, with a thirty year lease that must be kept secret for the security of the nation,
Does nothing  at all to warm the cockles of this Auroran's heart let alone strengthen ties to the community. 

Should paying half a million for a property used by the federal government for a hundred and eighteen years and left as a contaminated site to be restored at town expense, even be mentioned in the context of ties to the municipality?

Would  it have  perhaps been wise for the Honorary Colonel to have been briefed beforehand on recent interaction between the community and the military before he sponsored the latest demand  from our vertically -challenged elected representatives?

i think...perhaps so. I also believe perception is the reality. 

So...be careful with the term "Ignorance"


Anonymous said...

Oh, sheesh, I didn't know he was an Honorary. I thought he was a real Colonel.
Silly old me,,,,,,,,

Anonymous said...

"i thought it was most likely the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario but as noted I did not re-call her name
and I did not want to be disrespectful of the Lieutenant Governor."

One word: Google

Anonymous said...

Who or what and under what circumstances has the right, the authority, the power to take an ordinary civilian and create an Honorary Colonel of an existing military regiment?

Does this come from the Crown, the Prime Minister or Premier, a Mayor, a real military officer?

It would be good to know how camest to be Colonel Corkery and was he authorized to yank two veterans in full uniform to appear as his bookends while he made an apparently impassioned and effective plea before Council to arm the cenotaph.

Councillor Abel is still unstable as apparently are all of his fellows.

Anonymous said...

I think it was a dumb idea but there really is nothing to be done about this decision. Council is far more
concerned abut placating tennis people who missed the bubble chance and the /highland people heading
for the OMB. Maybe it will be an eye-sore or irritant ? We will have to wait and see,

Anonymous said...

Some women do look good in uniform, others not so much. It is the mark of a wise one to know when to switch
into civies. From what I have been hearing, the appearance before council was a set-up and purely for effect,

Anonymous said...

This Honorary Colonel is from Richmond Hill. I doubt Richmond Hill is on the list for one of these death machines.

Anonymous said...

We are good customers for the military - the armoury was something we just had to have too. I am still waiting
for news about what it can be used for besides storage and a sometime home for the market.

Anonymous said...

" I am still waiting for news about what it can be used for besides storage and a sometime home for the market."

Oh, I dunno...the museum?

Anonymous said...

Nope - there already is a place with the proper air circulation and ventilation already in town for the Museum.
Perhaps that cultural group might like to take the armoury on and really make something of it ?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see the cultural group move to the Hydro building. If we can move the armory building there as well, we can keep all the Town's screw ups under one roof, or at least on the same property. Maybe we can get a council next term that has the courage to sort out those disasters. Righting the wrongs/mistakes of the past is something this Town council is incapable or unwilling to do.

Anonymous said...

To borrow your word: Nope.

Anonymous said...

The Queen was and is comfortable with horses and it showed, shows whenever there is a photo of her with them.

Anonymous said...


I guess your ok with just taking things that are not yours.

Anonymous said...

That armory purchase has to go down as the most idiot purchase of the Towns history. To buy an abestos riddled building for over 1/2 a million $'s that nobody would even consider to buying is mind blowing. When the federal government got handed that cheque with our money, I'm sure they were yelling "Start the car! Start the car!

Anonymous said...

Talking about mistakes, 17:16, It's good to see that Council is acknowledging that they made one in trying to shoehorn the museum into that space. Both entities are adversely affected, with their respective operations compromised and curtailed.

There is now some impetus behind accommodating the museum elsewhere. I think a new, expansive stand-alone building is on the museum's wish list. The museum and the cultural centre both deserve the opportunity and resources to be the best they can be for the benefit of our town's residents.

Anonymous said...

"I guess your (sic) ok with just taking things that are not yours."

It's *ours*, 19:36. Let me repeat: OURS. All of ours - as in; by the Town, for the town.

Where's that much-vaunted inclusiveness that you're always calling for?

Anonymous said...

Too funny. I remember that lady on the Ikea commercial.

IP said...

21:52 No matter what spin you add, it was our museum.

Anonymous said...

07:06, It was only a part of the building pre-renovation - it shared Church St School with other community groups. What is also a FACT, IP, is that the Aurora Collection has been housed or displayed in at least FIVE buildings over the years. So no more talk of rightful places...

Anonymous said...

We already had these programs in OUR Town. But it wasn't enough was it? There were those who wanted more. Their quality of life was just not being met. Sad. OUR Town will not be able to sustain all of it. The SCC will be one of the things that will go first.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that the church st school was not where the museum was going to be located originally?

Anonymous said...

11:24, I'm saying that is was located in a number of places before it was even in a PART of Church St. School.

It helps to know the history, to offset some of the revisionist history recently presented, as well as the outright misinformation. How the AHS abdicated responsibility for a "heritage centre" is a matter of public record, however much some don't want to face the facts of a metaphorical 'throwing the keys on the table.'

Anonymous said...


You just called a Former Deputy Mayor a fiber.
Nice one.

Anonymous said...

I am sure you mean fibber.

Anonymous said...

You can write reams of justifications. In fact, you do.
Still, there is no way to obscure the reality of taking over that building from the purpose for which it
was renovated and specially conditioned to hand it over to a small group that could have been easily accommodated
elsewhere in town. Cuckoo for ever.