"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

Wednesday 13 January 2016

NOTHING CAN BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED

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

***************************************

 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?

In the last term served by Mr.  McGuinty, TheHonorable Dwight Duncan was Deputy -Premier and held several senior portfolios including Chair of Management Board. 

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.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Ho-hum...

Anonymous said...

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.

Sharonious said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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,

Anonymous said...

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 ?

Anonymous said...


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.




Anonymous said...

These are all distractions from the real criminals in government.

Anonymous said...

17:25
Who gets to make that determination ?