Conspiratorial homophobes – but, no ring!

Share Button

Well, I anticipated a lot of filth and rot, but once again the anticipation and the reality are poles apart.

The long absent Canadian Press sailed into Cornwall to further Paul Scott’s Citizens for Community Renewal notion that Cornwall is arife not with paedophiles, or homosexual paedophiles, or bisexual predators, or sexual predators, or ephebophiles, or pederasts or whatever you want to call men who molest boys, –  Cornwall, according to CCR, is arife with homophobes.  Conspiratorial homophobes at that!!!

What an insult to the victims!

There wasn’t a boo about homophobia in the CCR’s oral presentation, but it looks like they went for broke in their written submission.  I still haven’t had a chance to read it, but I’ve read enough in the media coverage to get the general feel.   Why CCR is in there advocating for the gay rights lobby is beyond me but they certainly have made high with their status as a party with standing and funding at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.  Were CCR not there I doubt that we would have heard much of this social engineering, but Glaude was only too happy to grant Scott’s group standing, and there they are spinning and engineering away with Canadian Press obligingly eating out of their hand.

Did I expect less?  No.  But, as I say, it doesn’t make it any easier. 

I long ago ran out of adjectives and adverbs.  Disgusting.  Sickening. Nauseating. Sordid.  Revolting.  Filthy.  Reprehensible.  But, I keep reminding myself that as bad as it is the pieces in the puzzle are falling into place :).

I might add here that an unexpected bonus to running the website and blog over the past years has been the ability to watch the media in operation.  Disturbing to put it mildly.  But very interesting.

Anyway, take a deep breath …. I posted a whole raft of articles on one page  – scroll down, there are variations.   I have more to post.  Later.

Keep the victims and the Dunlops in your prayers.  This is bad.  It will be hard on all.

Final thoughts for now:

(1)  Never ever forget: There is no ring and there is no cover-up.  No matter that there seems to be proof of cover-up and that a ring was never investigated – they are none existent – a figment of the homophobnic conspiratorial imagination;

(2)  The “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall can sleep tight. 

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Conspiratorial homophobes – but, no ring!

  1. David Price says:

    Here is a challenge to Paul Scott. I believed from the start that you were trying to dupe me. You were asking me the wrong questions and looking for the wrong documents. We now know that you are a plant. So who are you and where did you come from?

  2. prima facie says:

    It certainly appears that the “CCR” and Helen Daley have something “up their sleeve” so-to-speak. Does the “CCR” really represent the views of the citizens of Cornwall? You mention the “President” of “CCR” Paul Scott. As I believe it, didn’t he really only come to Cornwall in or about 1997 or 1998? Where did he come from? What was his work prior to coming to Cornwall? Is it appropriate to ask for a public disclosure or resume about the “president”, including dates prior to 1998? I mean, he is the influential “President”.
    So is the position of the “CCR” reflective of Paul Scott’s “outside” interests, whatever it may be motivated or influenced by, or, is the position of “CCR” a true representation of the citizens of Cornwall?

    Also, based on what I saw and read, I believe Dallas Lee’s submission was absolutely excellent. I believe there are “parts” of this Inquiry where Dallas truly did magnificent work.
    In the same light, I also see it as remarkable that suddenly, most of parties have modified their submissions to be a rebuttal of what Dallas Lee “submitted”…..just remarkable. Will Dallas Lee be able to “respond to”, the “rebuttals” to, his “submissions”?

    Did some of the parties wait for Dallas before scripting their own submissions?
    Doesn’t this say something about the positioning of or the placement order of the “parties”?

    In fact, in my opinion, the placement order for “witnesses” providing testimony at the inquiry is also suspicious…)oh no…allegations of conspiracy theory!!!!
    I would suggest that some of the witnesses or proposed witnesses would certainly have prepared to testify in, let’s say November, 2008 or maybe even January 2009….it would certainly have…..helped??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *