Makes no sense

Share Button

 I have a problem.  Seems someone has somehow hacked my website and added a link to an ad for a male potency product.  Do not click in “logekey” on the Menu at the left.  Ditto “Online” which  is currently showing as a broken link but was not put there by me

 Can anyone help me with this?  I have no idea how it got there and am unable to remove it with my software?  I have been trying for sometime to sort out how to remove the two links and just can’t.  I have an idea for success which I will try after I post this.  I will aslo get in touch with my web host but in the meantime if anyone has a sure fire way to adress the problem I would appreciate any assistance I can get.


First, a quick note re word of appeal as it was reported by the media.

The headlines read “Dunlop a no show in court,  the implication being Perry was supposed to show and, because he was a no show somehow he erred.

The truth of the matter is that  the Court of Appeal was advised by Perry last Spring that he would NOT be appearing in person at his appeal.  He had the option of filing his appeal in writing.  He chose that option.  His appeal was filed last Spring.  It is with the court. 

A reporter from Canadian Press, which first put the story out that Perry was scheduled to appear on 18 January 2010, appears to have read the documents on file at Divisional Court.  He/she would have read that Perry’s intent was to appeal in writing – not in person.  For whatever reason the CP reporter wrote the following:

Dunlop’s appeal is scheduled to be heard Monday, but he is self-represented and it’s unclear whether he will attend in person.

Why no mention of the fact that Perry explicitly stated in writing – in his appeal – that he would not appear in person? 

The article drawn from the CP coverage also noted that

The Crown didn’t notify Dunlop of the hearing date and attempts to reach him over the past week have not been fruitful, according to information in Dunlop’s court file.

That is fact.  The Crown failed to notify Perry that the appeal was scheduled until days before the 18th. 

I am a little confused about all of this.  Obviously there was an onus on the Crown to notify Perry of the scheduled date for the appeal, but why the apparent buzz over whether or not he would appear? 

It makes no sense to me.  What it has done in the long run is drag the matter out for who knows how much longer.

Begging time?  If yes, for whom?  and why?

Yet again something isn’t making sense.  

The Crown on the appeal, by the way, is none other than David Humphrey, the very man who fought tooth and nail on the AG’s behalf – successfully –  to put Perry behind bars.

What exactly does it take for the powers that be at the office of the Attorney General to recognize a conflict of interest?  And how many conflicts does it take for the AG to actually declare a conflict of interest when it comes to persecuting Perry Dunlop?

I hope I am wrong, but right now it’s looking like yet again the cards are being carefully and painstakingly stacked against the whistleblower. 


Note the blog on the Canadians for Accountability website:  Perry Dunlop: Forgotten Hero.  A great blog.


Three new media articles are posted.  The link and a brief comment on each:

(1)  25 January 2010:  ‘Reckless’ delay in support for victims

Another country heard from!

John Swales is suddenly back in the picture!  and looking for the Ontario taxpayer to fund unlimited counselling for every single sex abuse victim in Ontario!!

What can I say?  I am at a loss for words 🙁  I do believe common sense has flown right ut the window on this one! 

(2)  25 January 2010:  Diocese won’t be holding fire sale: But parishes told all but core assets on auction block

Goes to show that protecting, nurturing and/or harbouring clerical child molesters is a costly business in more ways than one.

Also, I see Bishop Brian Dunning is to be installed as Lahey’s replacement today.  Did ‘they’ take pains to pick a man with a squeaky clean slate this time?  The people of Antigonish deserve nothing less. 

(3) 25 January 2010:   Church making progress in dealing with sexual abuse: But new cases continue to arise and systemic issues remain 

More psychobabble from prominent Canadian Roman Catholics – try to lay the blame anywhere and everywhere but on the sinning priest. 

“What has happened in Cornwall is typical of what has happened across Canada,” the bishop said.

Meaning what?  What DID happen in Cornwall Bishop Durocher? I for one would like to be enlightened as to what the bishop beleives has been happening all across Canada. 

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Makes no sense

  1. Nellie says:

    I have a comment about the press reports that internationally always say the same things after the catholic church settles a law suit with victims. The church whines that they have to sell off property, close churches, stop funding to charities. The implication is that those greedy victims are forcing these things to happen. No one ever asks the catholic bishops what it has cost them to defend sex offenders and the institution they work for? NO one insists they tell the public what they have spent to financially support these sex offenders and pay for their medical and psychological costs. No one reports on their costs to pay for private investigators to dig up “dirt” on victims. I would bet my bottom dollar that these costs far outstrip any awards to victims.
    Why have we got media in Canada that don’t do investigative reporting? Why are catholics in the pews still supporting this institution? Where is the outrage?

  2. Sylvia says:

    Did you catch the report on CBC Radio a couple of days – seems the fact a number of victims opted to sue apart from the settlement so ably orchestrated by Lahey has forced them to hunt for another few million. And seems eveything was in the can and ready to go with banks or whomever backing the financing UNTIL Lahey got caught at the airport. I gather the Lahey business promompted the financing went down the tubes hence the yard sale.

    Lahey has cost them a pretty penny. BUT, are the powers that be happy with the deal he orchestrated or what? I just happened on this link:

    Look at it:

    “Do I Have to Go to Court?”

    No. The class action creates a private, confidential, and respectful compensation process that will allow legitimate sexual abuse survivors to receive compensation without having to file a lawsuit or testify in court.

    “Do I Have to Talk to the Police?”

    No. It is not necessary for the sexual abuse to have been reported to the police in order to qualify under the compensation process. It is not necessary for the priest to have been criminally charged or convicted in order to qualify under the settlement process. It does not matter if the priest is currently alive or dead.

    “Why Should I Join the Class Action?”

    Typically, sexual abuse survivors who sue for compensation must do so by filing a lawsuit, which is a public document. The survivor may have to testify publicly in court about what happened to them. The class action settlement creates a private process where a survivor’s claim is evaluated and compensation paid, without having to testify in court about the abuse that you suffered.

    Small wonder the push to get this thing rammed through. No duty to report. No police.

  3. Sylvia says:

    Heaven forbid a victim testify in court!

    Heaven forbid the public find out what Father was up to!!

    “It does not matter if the priest is alive or dead.” What if he’s very much alive and not a soul knows there are allegations against him?

    Who pray tell determines if if a “survivor” is “legitimate”?

    This is all fine and dandy for compensating victims of those clerical molesters who have been through the courts and the whole world knows who they are, but what of those who are very much alive and have never been charged, or sued? If indeed there are some of the latter identified, when their victims receive a settlment will anyone give the public a heads up to watch their children because the settlement team think Father X is a molester?

    It doesn’t look that way to me!

    If it is as I think it is, Lahey did well for the diocese. Small wonde rthere was so much rejoicing when the deal was brokered.

    Oh, there it is. I just looked again and now I see who decides if it’s a “legitimate” claim: “Lawyers for the Diocese will investigate your claim.”

    Too too much.

    And then of course there’s the whole business that if victims from 1950 on don’t come forward now ether to join the class action or launch their own legal action they can never ever ever sue. Never!

    Yes, Lahey served his diocese well. Who knows how many millions he may have saved in brokering such a diocesan-friendly deal?

    Why is no one paying attention to the details of this “settlement”? As you say Nellie, where are the oinvetigative reporters? And where is the outrage?

    Am I seeing right here? I THINK I am

Leave a Reply

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