Category Archives: London Free Press

The London Free Press has undermined their standing to mount a legal challenge to a bona fide publication ban and have castrated themselves of being a fair voice.

Posted on by
Reply

“Keeping in mind her safety. The Free Press never identified her during this week’s trial, even though there wasn’t a court-ordered publication ban.” Free Press

My father was a newspaper editor. He told me once that he often had mothers plead with him to keep Johnny’s name out of the newspaper; specifically the court reporting. My father knew all these people personally as it was a small community. It must have been difficult but he had the integrity to follow ethical and unequivocal news standards. He published my ex-wife’s name when she plead guilty to assault and he would have published mine had he been alive. It was an unenviable position but in some ways it was the easier avenue for my father. If he omitted Johnny’s name he would have to do so for others. The criteria would become chaotic. What would you use as a guide? Do I publish some, a few or just you?
What protocol was followed or not followed in the case of keeping secret the identities of those involved in this case? If the court did not proclaim any issues of safety, who revealed or how were they fashioned by the Free Press? There are rules to publication bans and I think Londoners should be informed of the Free Press instances and exclusions. Is it willy nilly? Does the court reporter throw a coin in the air and call heads? Should I contact the sports editor to find out what the exclusions are? If the court found no legal or so called safety issue and therefore imposed no publication ban what grounds did the London Free Press have? Who advised the Free Press that safety was an issue?
The first day this woman’s identity was unfoundedly protected the London Free Press coverage became prejudiced. It is difficult to protect a victim without creating an offender. It can only be inferred that the Free Press assumed the accused to be guilty prior to him being officially found or in this case claiming to be so. At the point of secrecy both individuals were only alleged.

The London Free Press and or Sun Media have undermined their standing to mount a legal challenge to a bona fide publication ban. They have castrated themselves of being a voice for the community and seem to have an agenda and or are influenced by certain agencies and individuals.
“Keeping in mind safety,” will the Free Press also refrain from revealing identities in other cases? What are the parameters? Who provides the litmus? Is it to be reserved only for alleged victims or will the accused also at times be protected? There are verdicts of not guilty. Will the London Free Press protect an alleged offender? The revelation of their identity creates conditions which are unsafe for them and their families. Some people are only ever accused. What about the accused who will never be found guilty? What about individuals who are Not Criminally Responsible? It is difficult to argue that Vincent Li who killed Tim McLean wouldn’t be safer if his identity was protected.
If find it frightening that the Free Press has taken it upon themselves to identify those worthy of anonymity for safety or any reason outside of a court decision. It flies in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the presumption of innocence.
http://www.lfpress.com/2015/10/07/husbands-surprise-plea-ends-london-attempted-murder-trial

Should a government be allowed to use the House of Commons to propel their party back to the seats they ignore us from?

Posted on by
Reply

What purpose or whose purpose is being served by Bill C-51? Certain experts have been excluded while the rest are ignored. The committee process should not be a formality. The input and scrutiny of a Bill by outside experts and members affected most by a law, should be respected and listened to so there is opportunity to alter what is basically a first draft. The Conservatives are so full of themselves they believe they are a government who only needs to make one draft. Time and time again they have rammed through legislation without respecting and listening to the voices of Canadians. When this government thinks it knows better than anyone they become an elected dictatorship.

Essentially, we have a Prime Minister who keeps little council directing a group of MP’s who won’t peep or pout for fear of the head. Employees don’t fear the boss for no reason. For this entire term how many conservatives have spoken up to question the decisions or direction of the government? A bunch of Yes minions are drafting Bills and we are expected to believe they are broadly democratic and flawless in their first draft.

Since when does a room full of politicians outweigh even one expert? I don’t know how governments work but I was under the impression that laws were made with every expert being considered and listened to. What if one of them sees a huge flaw in a Bill? Wouldn’t that assist the government in passing sound and fair Bills? If the Conservatives were building a backyard garden shed they would not borrow their neighbours Skill Saw, nor ask the guy with the construction sign on his truck to look at the plans they drew up on a napkin nor listen to the YouTube tutorial. Information? Who needs information to construct, alter and employ a Bill that will affect the entire nation on some level? Stephen Harper is near a one step composer who listens to few and fewer of us.

If you think what the Conservatives are up to isn’t calculated for party promise you don’t know this government.

I don’t know what you call the Conservatives as I neither know the term for a group of powerful and self important individuals who choose only fights with groups that alone are fairly insignificant in ability to apply political resistance or in any significant way tip polls in a direction to harm the government.
The Prime Minister and his henchpeople seem to think their expertise as law makers implies an expertise in one or any corner on how and all the ramifications of a Bill as it is applied to and alters the populace. I’m a simple guy but what are the odds of a room full of conservatives knowing each and every aspect of a Bill and how or what it affects when it is employed? So the office with 100 people in it can cover all aspects of such a complicated measure while the 35 million they govern have nothing to offer as far as knowledge, perspective or expertise? Is it democracy when laws are dictated to us instead of held up to see if anyone else could add?
What permission is given by the electorate to the elected that entitles them to alter the voting system and apply increased and arbitrary scrutiny powers to governmental agencies? We all love the conservatives but what if these powers fell into the wrong hands?

When the idiot I didn’t vote for was elected to represent me I assumed he would not use his fictitious mandate to alter my or anyone’s powers to vote or tread near issues that affect the rules that affect my privacy freedoms, freedom of expression or powers that would allow any government to detain or interfere with any of us. I would understand a need to quickly alter provisions if the country was at war but it is as much a political bus to catch as a terrorist. As a Canadian I consider such alterations not something a majority minority should institute on a nation without either finding a true majority or using a plebiscite. I believe all should be protected from such action if we aren’t already.

We have groups and people who are as, if not more informed than this government. Why would any government refuse to take notice of problematic aspects of a Bill if they are being pointed out by experts? If a government was crafting a law related to the healthcare of Canadians we would be aghast if doctors were speaking out but being ignored. If this government was listening to Canadians who have pertinent and informed concerns people would not be forced into the streets to protest for action that should be implemented at committee level.

Canadians depend on experts as part of the law making process. As well any individuals who would seem to be directly affected should each and all be able to inform the process of Bill making.

Why are the Conservatives kicking up clouds of divisions? It is somewhat frightening when a Prime Minister attempts to pit the country against itself. I find it dangerous and more than distasteful when anyone in power uses their governance to better themselves in an upcoming election. I do not want a government that pulls self interest Bills from their partisan strategy room. When the part of the process that truly protects Canadians from poor government is not given fair, open and conclusive and inclusive public scrutiny and regard it becomes dictation. I think it is unCandaian for a Prime Minister to wedge Canadians into preferential polls, and party fundraising. No government should be allowed to use the House of Commons to propel a party back to the seats they ignore us from.

One could be the other and what protects the individual protects us all. Canadians need to resist the fear and misconceptions this government is willing to spread on a nation for political strategy. We need to ask what is the magician doing or has done while we are being distracted by the rabbit.

Johnathan Sher”lock” of the London Free Press calls himself an “investigative bulldog” all the while missing even simple hospital signage.

Posted on by
Reply

“Health Care: Ministry wants more done to protect nurses, patients in psych ward” was the headline on the front page of the London Free Press yesterday.

I have been a mental health consumer for over 30 years and I have never been on a “psych ward”. Apparently writing at a grade six level isn’t enough for the London Free Press and they have reverted to making up their own words. Unfortunately, these words carry meaning for many.

I would like to ask Johnathan Sher”lock” or his exaggerating editor which hospital they have observed signage directing the public to the “psych ward”? If a hospital has enough sense to be sensitive and current the same should fall to any reporter. I would not fault a reader for such references but an award winning health reporter should be ashamed and admonished. Sher”lock’s” misconceptions and sensationalism unfortunately have an effect on the general public. There must be a scarcity of space in the London Free Press and words like psychiatric need to be pruned. We all know it is on purpose. Sher”lock” and his editors have made a cheap attempt at an attention grabbing headline and the casualty is everyone who has, will have or is on a mental health journey. The social impact and perpetuation of stigma are incalculable.

Do we refer to the ICU as the Intensive Care Ward? Is there such a thing as a Neonatal Ward? Governments, organizations and individuals spend an inordinate amount of time and money to combat stigma and we have Sher”lock” and the London Free Press printing phrases that all but dismantle those efforts. There’s an award for that right Sher”lock”?

Sher”lock” calls himself an “investigative bulldog” all the while missing even simple hospital signage. I have a dog and all I know is it is full of feces twice a day. Thankfully the London Free Press does not have an evening edition. Often people’s misconceptions are solidified by headlines. A headline is a means to grab attention but it should be factual and current. Sher”lock” the “investigative bulldog” has stopped at the hydrant of hype and drenched the psychiatric community in stigma.

Johnathan Sher”lock” of the London Free Press reports that “Ontario’s Labour Ministry has ordered London’s biggest hospital to do more to combat violence and overcrowding…”

When I was being admitted to a jail I was placed in solitary confinement because the jail was at capacity. One of the female guards said “a full jail is a happy jail.” This is, was and always will be an oxymoron. I have been in lock-down situations and stacked three men to a cell and if my experience counts for anything the Labour Ministry, London Health Sciences Centre, Johnathan Sher”lock” and the London Free Press only need to understand one thing. If you address overcrowding you have little need to address violence. They are near being mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, I can speak to the issue of overcrowding, segregation and the suspension of privileges and personal privacy and freedoms. Each and all have an effect on any individual but they are amplified by symptoms and serious mental illness. If individuals with physical symptoms were exposed to a similar environment we would see similar behaviors. The violence occurring at London Health Sciences Centre is environmental more than mental. Psychiatric units under normal conditions are not a breeding ground for beatings.

If Johnathan Sher”lock” was truly an “investigative bulldog” he would have sniffed out reality. Possibly Sher”lock” could have sniffed out statistics surrounding violence in Alzheimer’s patients and individuals experiencing dementia. The psychiatric community holds no ownership on violence. Head trauma can also result in personality changes and problematic behaviour but we paint psychiatric patients with a brush we would not use on other individuals in society who are also vulnerable and compromised for fear that they might be tarnished.

Sher”lock” reports that the “Ontario Nurses’ Association this week accused the hospital and the Labour Ministry of sitting idle while attacks on nurses last year surged 20-fold..”

Firstly, I am saddened by this as my mother was a psychiatric nurse and during my journey I have met dozens of nurses who deserve safe working conditions for themselves and to accommodate the great work they do. My issue again falls to language. Sher”lock” has a legal background and the word attack does not appear in quotations so I can only assume legal relevancy flew out the door when they brought in sensationalism. People are not charged with “attack”, they are charged with assault. Call a spade a spade. Surely not all of these incidents were “attacks.” Any logical person would assume some of these incidents are a harmful or offensive contact with a person. I understand there have been severe incidents but to call them all attacks is stigmatizing and sensational. To use this language to invite change is one thing but to use it to sell a newspaper is prostituting language. Only an overzealous crown attorney or a defunct defence lawyer would refer to an assault as an attack. In a court of law inflammatory inferences are often objected to and sustained. A lawyer writing for a newspaper should also be reminded of their contempt.

The London Free Press needs to do more to ensure both codified and uncodified ethics and standards are followed.#MorrisandMeghan

Posted on by
Reply

Some fairly literate individuals told me that there was some kind of familial relationship between Morris Dalla Costa of the London Free Press and Meghan Walker of the London Abused Women’s Centre. I hope I’m not letting the “cat” out of the bag but this liaison worries me as a citizen of London. I wouldn’t want to call the objectivity of the London Free Press into question for they can do so themselves.

It’s none of my business what Morris Dalla Costa does with his business but someone in a somewhat removed position might want to inquire as to the access given to Meghan Walker and the London Abused Women’s Centre by the London Free Press.

How many quotes from Meghan Walker and the London Abused Women’s Centre have made it into the London Free Press lately and in the last decade? How many questions were asked? How many journalists at the London Free Press are free enough of Morris Dalla Costa and his legacy to slide a toe beyond political pushing’s and mandates to cast a fair eye to the workings and dealings of the London Abused Women’s Centre?

What is the relationship between the London Free Press and Meghan Walker? Is what goes into and comes out of the London Women’s Abused Centre fairly scrutinized? How does the London Abused Women’s Centre translate into action? In what way does the London Abused Women’s Centre assist and accommodate unproven victims? What is the rate of conviction for cases that the London Abused Women’s Centre is involved with? What services are available to men who are in abusive relationships in the city of London? Is the relationship between Meghan Walker and the London Free Press creating favouritism in reporting?

Should a journalist use their position and the resources of the newspaper they are employed by to present, promote and publish their partner’s personal agenda? I’m not saying Meghan Walker is using the London Free Press to substantiate and disseminate her personal beliefs but I am convinced her partner has done and is doing something similar. How else do you explain someone whose sentence structure revolves around sports scores and standings vehemently voicing and in fact attacking individuals with views that differ from his partner?

To paint a similar picture, what if Morris Dalla Costa was married to the mayor? Would Londoner’s be given a clear view of mayoral mismanagement or would we have to swallow matrimonial musings? What if Morris is an abused husband? It becomes difficult to be objective. If ever Meghan Walker or the London Abused Women’s Centre become involved in something disreputable who will cover the story? Morris Dalla Costa? Morris’s colleagues?

If only for optics the London Free Press needs to make a substitution and place Morris in the bleachers.

The more someone is displayed to the justice system as a victim, prior to proof, the more someone is then presented as a perpetrator, prior to proof. We need to assist individuals who have been harmed but care must be taken not to lubricate litigation?

I’m not much of a reporter. It was my father who was the editor. I’m sure he would have altered a few of my words but I think he would have asked similar questions. My father once told me of having to deal with pleading parents who wanted him to omit “Johnny’s” name from the court news. He published the name of someone I knew once but I did not approach him with similar pleadings because I was aware of his integrity and that of his newspaper.

Outside of an editorial piece a newspaper should not be a personal playground for opinion. Readers become confused by what is fact and what is fancy. Londoners deserve and expect fair and accurate coverage of all individuals, organizations and events. Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality and fairness are cornerstones of journalism, not hurdles.

I hold the London Free Press responsible for turning the Bill Cosby affair into a circus. I am saddened that the London Free Press slipped into the seat of juror number five but what is worse is that they chose themselves for this duty and returned with a version of the verdict without hearing all the evidence.

As a community and a society we depend on journalists respecting the presumption of innocence. When journalists become judges, courtrooms become carnivals and the mob mentality of medieval times manifests itself as a modern form of justice.

In my opinion readers of the London Free Press have been deliberately manipulated with selective reporting. To maintain public trust the London Free Press must be independent and accountable.

After insulting me Morris Dalla Costa blocked me from viewing his official London Free Press Twitter account. Is that what they call “yellow journalism”? Obviously Morris is shy on wit but I would have assumed a sportscaster would be a good sport. Thanks for forfeiting the game.

In my opinion the London Free Press needs to start using all the crayons in the box. Any child will tell you that to do otherwise make interpretation next to impossible.

Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference. I am unsure if Morris Dalla Costa blocking me from his London Free Press Twitter account is interference but it is surely not accessibility. To do so in the event of harassment is understandable or even necessary but my communications were only civil. His basis for doing so seems to be a disagreement in values which in my opinion is healthy to both democracy and freedom. If we look critically at the coverage of the London Free Press it is not difficult to find media bias and sensationalism. Neither serves justice or democracy.

I don’t care what Morris muses over his morning coffee but his duties as a journalist require professional integrity. Without it his credibility and that of the paper he represents crumble.

In the case of calling me a “sheep” in an official London Free Press Tweet it should have fallen to another employee to implement independent fact-checking. Preferably one who does not sleep with Meghan Walker. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Journalists are required to be judicious about naming criminal suspects before a formal filing of charges. There must be a balance between a criminal suspect’s right to a fair trial and the public’s right to be informed. This I did not see.

The London Free Press must earn and maintain their reputation by implementing ethical standards. If ethical standards have no place with the London Free Press readers should be informed so the puppy can pee on the paper prior to perusal. The coverage applied by the London Free Press to the Bill Cosby case was not far from tabloidism. If the London Free Press is entertainment rather than news I apologize and will wait patiently for coverage on Elvis sightings.

The London Free Press needs to do more to ensure both codified and uncodified ethics and standards are followed.

I usually flip to the back of the textbook for answers but again, I would suggest keeping Morris Dalla Costa on the sidelines.

Will the London Free Press be tweeting insults to all Londoners with opposing views or is this right reserved for Mr. Morris Dalla Casta?

Posted on by
Reply

Let me tell you about a cat named Morris.

It might be an oxymoron to call Morris Dalla Casta thin skinned but the London Free Press employee appears to be. I shared with Mr. Dalla Casta my thoughts regarding the mayor and the executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre. He seemed to disagree so I showed him the logic of the situation. This only angered Mr. Dalla Casta and he officially tweeted from the London Free Press insults, inferences and invention.

His first words were to call me a sheep. Perhaps Mr. Dalla Casta was without access to a dictionary while using an electronic device probably owned by the London Free Press to insult me. How many people in London, Ontario are openly blogging a view opposite the majority about the Bill Cosby situation? I don’t follow Mr. Dalla Casta’s claim that I mindlessly follow. Mr. Dalla Casta would likely wet his pants some of the places I have walked alone.

Mr. Dalla Casta’s next words were that I was afraid of change. How long have you been with the London Free Press Mr. Dalla Casta?

Morris also said I feel I am the status quo. I dont know much Latin so I Googled status quo. I am confused how a person could feel to keep things the way they presently are. Morris told me it was logic but it must be London Free Press logic. If Morris Dalla Casta did some research he would have learned that I am employed in changing the way things presently are.

The only thing Mr. Morris Dalla Casta was near being correct about was that I feel I am owed something. I feel I am owed an apology from Mr. Morris Dalla Casta and the London Free Press. If you want to reach me I only read the front page.