According to Cornwall Deputy Chief of Police Danny Aikman, the CPS squandered thousands upon thousands – if not millions – of tax dollars to train commission counsel hone their skills!
Seems CPS happily forked our monies to prepare 16 CPS witnesses who might be called to testify but who in fact never got near the stand.
Aikman has no problem with this:
“I think ah certainly the preparations and the interviews with the various commission counsel uh may have ah refined their ability to ask questions of other witnesses…”
Note the CPS bill is in the range of a whopping $8M! Rest assured that had the AG not been funding the CPS through the back door there would have been no such squandering of funds. If the CPS had been compelled to seek and secure funding when it first started wailing about costs it would have been obliged to abide by the inquiry cap on lawyers salaries, research funds and so on. That would have seriously clipped CPS’ wings.
Sadly but not surprisingly, CPS did not have its wings clipped. The Attorney General did not compel the CPS to apply for funding. CPS received virtually every penny it wanted through the back door to pay exorbitant lawyers’ fees, not to mention research bills.
No caps on CPS. Unfettered freedom to spend and squander at will. The AG would pick up the tab.
Would the Victims Group get away with that? If, for example, way back in 1995 Ledroit Beckett had gone in there saying ‘We just want standing. We don’t need funding. We’ll pay our won way. The victims have deep pockets.’
And if L/B had then done the following:
(i) assigned two senior lawyers, one intermediate lawyer and Dallas Lee as a rookie to look after the interests of the victims at the inquiry;
(ii) retained a minimum of three full-time researchers to pore through every transcript and document to assist the lawyers;
(iii) retained three legal secretaries to draw charts and chronologies to assist the lawyers.
And then let’s suppose that if after a year or so L/B went knocking at the AG’s door with hat in hand moaning that its bills were astronomical and the victims can’t foot this sort of expense.
Would the AG have told L/B- the victims: ‘No problem. We’ll look after it. You carry on as you are and we’ll pick up the tab for you. If you need another senior lawyer – go for it. And, oh, by the way, no need to apply for funding at the inquiry – we don’t want to clip your wings. You’d never be able to represent the victims properly if you were subjected to the inquiry R&R. and in fact you’d have to fire a couple of lawyers and two researchers and at least one legal secretary. So, not to worry – you keep spending and we’ll keep paying.”
Do you really suppose it would have worked for the Victims Group the way it worked for CPS?
I doubt it. Just as much as I doubt the same scenario would have worked for the Coalition.
Did the CPS and the AG have this cosy back-room funding deal up their sleeves from Day One?
(2) Citizens for Community Renewal
And, according to the same article, CCR member Peggy Parker believes that the best outcome for the inquiry would be: “That children feel safe and protected in Cornwall.”
I think it goes without saying that it is one thing for children to feel safe and protected and quite another for them to be safe and protected. It is the nature of the child to trust adults. It is not, it seems, the nature of adults these days to ensure that that trust is not betrayed and that children are both safe and protected. That, lest we forget, is where Constable Perry Dunlop first stepped into the fray 16 long years ago.
That aside I have been intrigued over the years with the CCR’s apparently ever-evolving objectives.
There wasn’t a word about the safety of children when CCR applied for standing and funding in 1995.
Indeed, according to its application CCR was incorporated with the following “objects” in mind:
(i) supporting and advancing renewal within the community at large;
(ii) providing information. Including that collected as a result of research, or otherwise, carried on under the auspices of the corporation, in relation to that support or advancement;
(iii) advocating for, initiating, and undertaking processes and proceedings, to examine or to investigate judicially or otherwise, matters relating to such support or advancement;
(iv) undertaking programs, alone or with others, to educate, to counsel, and to aid the disadvantaged
(v) coordinating the activities of the corporation with those of similar organizations, societies and individuals;
(vi) such other complimentary purposes not inconsistent with those objects.
One of CCR’s main objects is to participate in the work of the Commission. However, CCR anticipates having a life beyond that of the Commission, and intends to be involved in a broad array of matters related to community renewal.
That was October 2005.
By 01 November 2007 Helen Daley was describing CCR in narrower terms
“….their primary interest is in reforming institutions towards the protection of children.”
On 21 January 2008 CCR lawyer Alan Manson put it this way:
I am one of the lawyers for the Citizens for Community Renewal, which is a local citizens group concerned with institutional reform, and especially protecting young people.
Children were certainly increasingly referenced. The CCR was no longer simply working for “reform” of “institutions” – protecting children or “young people” was becoming key. I recall noticing the change.
Then, on 29 January 2009, a CCR lawyer expanded the CCR objectives a tad and had this to say:
MR. STRAWCZYNSKI: “… my group has an interest in institutional reform for the protection of youth and justice for all.” (emphasis added)
And, as we have already seen, according to the article in the 04 January 2009 Freeholder Mrs. Parker hope “That children feel safe and protected in Cornwall.”
What kind of “life beyond that of the Commission” does CCR envisage? And what involvement does CCR anticipate in “in a broad array of matters related to community renewal”?
Is this simply another another group lining up at the public trough looking for government hand-outs?
We shall see 🙂
Also of interest is something I happened on while looking back at the CCR application.
If you take the time to read the CCR application you will note the following:
“The events to be examined by this commission have generated a ‘homophobic virus’ which resulted in discrimination against some gay individuals.”
That one came right out of the blue, but seems to be a thread embraced within the Weave Shed and certainly one hammered into the ground in one form or another by CCR, particularly I would say when Carson Chisholm testified. In the latter Helen Daley went to extraordinary lenths trying to get Carson to say that because he notes that the bulk of perpetrators in Cornwall are homosexual paedophiles he therefore says that all homosexuals are paedophiles!
That’s the sort of spin which seems to be near and dear to CCR’s heart.
What just today caught my eye is that Lori Taylor is listed as a member of CCR.
Lori Taylor, some may recall, raised a public fuss when Carson picketed with a sign which said something about “pedo-sodomites.”
I had not the faintest notion that Taylor is a member of CCR. (scroll down to page 33 – signature #31 on attachment)
Just another interesting little tid bit – another piece to fit into the puzzle. Slowly but surely it is taking shape 🙂
Keep Perry’s mother Heather in your prayers. It turns out that Heather has suffered a silent heart attack.
The children were worried about her health. When she went out to BC for a visit Perry & Helen got her in to see a doctor. She just recently received word that she suffered a heart attack, time unknown.
And to that all I can say is small wonder. I can not for the life of me conceive being in her shoes and watching the rabble shred her son limb from limb, time and time and time again.
Heather is now undergoing further tests. She takes it all in stride and without a word of complaint.
She is such a lovely, gentle and dear lady. Keep her and the whole family in your prayers. The attacks on Perry are not over by a long shot.
More to come, but,….
Enough for now,