I had a few minutes – posted two items, both dealing with never-ending conflicts of interest which seem to abound and permeate everything related to the Cornwall scandal (1) a recent article re Jim Flaherty in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder (“Jim Flaherty: Cornwall’s other MP” – scroll down) and (2) a backgrounder on two of Justice Glaude’s picks for his recently unveiled Advisory Panel.
So now we know that Michael Harris’ former Attorney General (Flaherty) has Cornwall ties, and that the same commissioner who insisted that members of his Advisory Panel should be free of any conflict of interest turned around and appointed two individuals with direct ties to Rick Goodwin and the Men’s Project.
Alas I believe I am starting to understand more clearly why Glaude rejected the Coalition for Action’s application for standing and funding, and why those who were granted standing have refused to challenge the wording of the mandate or address Glaude’s real and perceived conflicts.
At this moment in time I am weary and don’t dare try to articulate my thoughts. But think it through for yourself and see if you can sort out why (1) an inquiry prompted by allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up has turned into a research project into the institutional response to allegations of sexual abuse, (2) those granted standing were keen to get on with the inquiry, (3) not a soul with standing expressed an iota of interest in ensuring the inquiry got off to good start with an unbiased judge and a decent mandate (3) the Coalition for Action was denied standing.
Enough for now,