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.

“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.

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

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.