Ft
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "IT'S A FRAME OF MIND":
Sorry, but I am not shedding a tear for her or anyone else that might be involved. If records were handled in accordance with what I am sure must be clear written directives of the government and she can demonstrate this she need not worry.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 January 2016 at 12:39
Sorry, but I am not shedding a tear for her or anyone else that might be involved. If records were handled in accordance with what I am sure must be clear written directives of the government and she can demonstrate this she need not worry.
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 11 January 2016 at 12:39
***************************************
The comment pays little attention to the mode of modern politics.
The charge against Laurie Miller. is Breach of Trust....destruction of public records.
Why were the records destroyed? Who gave the order?
Who benefited from destruction of evidence?
Laurie Millar was an employee in The Premier's office. Did she make the decision to cancel power generation plants projects already under construction?
Who benefitted?
Why did the O.P.P. Officer who announced the charges against Laurie Millar and the senior manager feel compelled to exonerate the former Premier of any wrong- doing? Why was that his responsibility?
He had previously served as M.P. In Liberal Opposition at the Federal level where he also held senior responsibilities. He was elected from a traditional historical Liberal bastion in Windsor.
Mr. Duncan did not put his name forward after the decisions to cancel the gas generation plants in Burlington and Missuassaga on the eve of the previous election.
The Minister had much to contribute at the time of his exit from politics. He offered no explanation. Simply a sad and sober warning the province was facing serious problems.
When criminal charges were announced against Laurie Millar, McGuinty's employee, crowd-funding was announced for the defence.
Dwight Duncan was named as contributor .
The story has been a long time on the radar.
An investigation was by the Ontario Provincial Police.the government investigated itself.
Another government department will decide if evidence is sufficient to prosecute the charge.
A provincially appointed judge will be selected to preside.
It may be a jury trial. But not necessarily a jury decision.
The judge has authority to take away the rightmost jury decision.
For whatever spurious reasons he may contrive.
It cannot be concluded that right will prevail.
Our Province has changed.
Posts
12 comments:
Ms Wynne is very quiet. I think it is possible she realizes that she is unpopular for some serious reasons. But. unless a
decent form of opposition emerges, she will be able to ride it out. Like Evelyn, I expect nothing and hope to be proved
wrong.
It certainly has changed. The electorate wanted them back with a majority. If they can pull that sort of stuff with a minority....Can't wait to find out what they can do with their majority.
Interesting comments...
"The charge against Laurie Miller. is Breach of Trust....destruction of public records.
Why were the records destroyed? Who gave the order?
Who benefited from destruction of evidence?
Laurie Millar was an employee in The Premier's office. Did she make the decision to cancel power generation plants projects already under construction? "
Should she have been charged? Most definitely. In her position, she knows the rules of information and what is allowed and what is not. She "pulled the trigger" so to speak to do the task requested of her. Just like a person that hire a "hit man" to kill someone, both the "hitman" and the "employer" are charged with murder. In this case however, the "employer" gets to walk. Miller has to take the fall.
Who benefitted? I think the more correct question is who was wronged? In that case, the public was wronged and those that did it need to pay. She made the decision to press "OK" when the computer said "Are you Sure?". She needs to pay for the wrong committed by her and her employer.
Ho-hum...
Well she didn't just wake up one morning & decide to trash the records. What she will say in court should be interesting
unless she decides to say nothing.
We don't know the whole story.We don't know what files were "trashed".
I believe that Mr. Livingstone and Ms. Miller were set up to take the fall,
and totally blind sided by this. These are very respected, very capable people who lives have been ruined by this witch hunt. Reminds me so much of our Federal Conservatives with the Duffy nonsense. The wrong guy has to hang publicly.
Shame, why would anyone want to get involved with government with this BS
happening all the time.
We don't know the whole story.We don't know what files were "trashed".
I believe that Mr. Livingstone and Ms. Miller were set up to take the fall,
and totally blind sided by this. These are very respected, very capable people who lives have been ruined by this witch hunt. Reminds me so much of our Federal Conservatives with the Duffy nonsense. The wrong guy has to hang publicly.
Shame, why would anyone want to get involved with government with this BS
happening all the time.
Sharonious
I agree that it looks like a set-up.
But - both have been able to find good jobs since and it seems odd that there is not insurance covering their defence.
All sorts of people who should not get legal assistance do.
and Duffy appears to have slipped the noose. It was the Conservatives that took that hit,
10:47
Are you suggesting that the charges should not have been laid ? That the two of them did not try to clear
off the tapes ?
Seems to me the case has to start somewhere in order to see where it goes.
No ?
The provincial government and indeed most other employers will not fund a defence for employees acting outside the law. If, for example, a government employee acting in good faith and in accordance with policy and legal guidelines issued an approval to emit some substance that subsequently caused harm or material discomfort to some person(s) the government would provide a defence. That is because the employee was acting in good faith, in accordance with government policy and good science and had no motive or intent to cause harm. In essence, the employee was being diligent in his/her duties.
These are all distractions from the real criminals in government.
17:25
Who gets to make that determination ?
Post a Comment