babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Cops (?) attempt to smear Police Board Chair

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Cops (?) attempt to smear Police Board Chair
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 07:24 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The new chair of the Toronto Police Services Board denounced as "deeply offensive" an internal police memo that painted him as sympathetic to child pornographers.

"Any comments I made two years ago have been taken completely out of context," Alan Heisey said yesterday. "I'm the father of four beautiful children. I find the inference I `understand' a pedophile or pornographer deeply offensive."

The controversial memo, written more than 15 months ago by a member of the Toronto police sex crimes unit, surfaced this week, less than seven days after Heisey was elected chair


This isn't the first time something like this has happened. I recall several years ago a Toronto Star editorial board member who had written critical op ed pieces about the police was charged with pornography related crimes after his collection of 1950s era erotica was found during a police search. It took several years before he was cleared in the courts.

Don't know if the leak came from Gardner or from the cops or form the police "union", but, unfortunately, it's not unusual for police critics to be victims of smears. Let's not forget that other board members have been victims of past camapigns by the police, Olivia Chow and Judy Sgro were both basically forced off the board. NDP appointee Laura Rowe was smeared in the early 1990s when "information" that she was in a car with someone who was under investigation (unbeknownst to her) was leaked to the media.

quote:
"This is a collective shot over the bow, not only to Heisey but to every member of the police board. The message is `We're watching you,'" said veteran criminal lawyer Howard Morton, former director of the province's Special Investigations Unit. "Somebody has intentionally leaked this to the media for an improper use. So Fantino should not just be looking into it, he should call a criminal investigation into it."


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 12:34 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was thinking this would elicit more comment.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 01:34 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heisie's rebuttal is till very weak. He has not denied discussing the case but has claimed his comments were taken out of context.

Yes the leak is suspiscious but lets not lose sight of the fact that if there are even grains of truth here Heisie has a responsiblity to explain exactly how the comments were misunderstood.

Once that is clarified (if indeed it is clarified) then we should look at how the leak came about.

However I remain very uncomfortable with Heisie's unwillingness to tell the entire story.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 01:40 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He's said that he was hoping the guy was innocent which is a sentiment most people hold when they hear someone's been charged with a crime. This isn't the case of a police board member phoning up an officer to "discuss" a case but of a chat in the hospitality room at a convention which, if it's anything like hospitality rooms I've seen, means a conversation in a corner after you've had a few drinks.

In any case if there was a problem with what he said it should have been investigated two years ago. As it was the Chief of Police and then head of the Police Board saw his "comments" (and having heard police versions of conversations I've witnessed I tend to take police reports of second hand comments with a grain of salt) as unworthy of further investigation.

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 01:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(Edited to say: I was responding to Mishei's unconscionable post, not Mycroft's.)

No. We investigate the leak first.

There is NO evidence against Mr Heisey. (Mishei, could you trouble to spell his name correctly?) There is a memo written by someone else that summarizes his comments and an encounter. That is not evidence.

The clear infraction here is the leak, so that's where the investigation starts.

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 01:46 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Heisie's rebuttal is till very weak. He has not denied discussing the case but has claimed his comments were taken out of context.

Yes the leak is suspiscious but lets not lose sight of the fact that if there are even grains of truth here Heisie has a responsiblity to explain exactly how the comments were misunderstood.


Well, he said:

quote:
As for the situation at his son's school, he said he now thought the teacher deserved to go to jail. At the time, though, he had simply hoped he was innocent and that the allegations were untrue. Heisey added that any speculation that he was trying to influence the case was "totally offensive and libellous."

quote:
Once that is clarified (if indeed it is clarified) then we should look at how the leak came about.

However I remain very uncomfortable with Heisie's unwillingness to tell the entire story.


I don't think he's been unwilling. He's been all over the media explaining his side.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 01:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is NO evidence against Mr Heisey.

There is A LOT of evidence against others, beginning with the officer who wrote the memo.

This stinks. But then, the Toronto Police Board has been stinking up this city for over a decade.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 January 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Death to child-pornographers! Death to the possessors of child-pornography! Death to everyone who is even suspected of child sexual abuse! And death to anyone who does not wish death on anyone who refuses to issue a death threat to anyone talking about this issue in less than "death threat" terms.

...there, I believe I'm covered, should this comment turn up in a memo two years from now.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 January 2004 02:52 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm still curious - when exactly did Mr. Heisey stop beating his wife?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let me repeat..the issue of the leaked memo is serious.

But let me also repeatthe allegations against a man in Mr. Heisey's political position are also serious.

So let him explain fully what the context may have been. I for one have not seen a full explanation despite what you have posted here. It did not explain the context. That will settle one issue.

Secondly, I disagree with you Mycroft, members of the Toronto Police Services Board should not be discussing ANY current cases before the Courts especially with the investigating officer. It plainly smells. Heisey is in effect one of this man's bosses he holds a position of public trust it was inexplicably dumb of him to engage in the conversation no matter where or how.

All this said, I was quite hopeful when Mr. Heisey was appointed. He seemed like a reformer with a progressive look at things. Certainly a far cry from the Gardner do-nothing years and I held out much hope. But I cannot shake this thing easily.

And Skdadl your constant pokes at spelling are tiresome. I always understood that Babble had an unwritten rule not to engage in spelling flames. Or are these rules not for you? Yes I mispelled his name but for you to constantly do this teacher thing is ridiculous. Stop it please.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 January 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But let me also repeatthe allegations against a man in Mr. Heisey's political position are also serious.

Unless I'm missing something, there are no allegations against Mr. Heisey.

There are innuendos -- based on a memo written 15 months ago by an officer who won't back it up now. Innuendo No. 1 is that he's soft on child pornography; Innuendo No. 2 is that he was trying to influence an investigation.

But no actual allegations, let alone evidence.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

Unless I'm missing something, there are no allegations against Mr. Heisey.

There are innuendos -- based on a memo written 15 months ago by an officer who won't back it up now. Innuendo No. 1 is that he's soft on child pornography; Innuendo No. 2 is that he was trying to influence an investigation.

But no actual allegations, let alone evidence.


And despite all the senior people who saw the memo no one saw justifiable grounds to open an investigation let alone lay charges.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 15 January 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Let me repeat..the issue of the leaked memo is serious.

Sure, I'd let you repeat it. Not that you're doing so, because you had not previously said it. You said it was suspicious. You didn't say it was serious, much less serious.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 15 January 2004 03:18 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I'm pointing that out as well, because your debating style is difficult, Mishei. You said "Yes the leak is suspiscious but...". That's not the same thing as "Let me repeat..the issue of the leaked memo is serious". Shifting your position like this in a discussion can be very frustrating.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So as far as you guys are concerned the media has blown this out of proportion and we should just let it go away?

Heisy has admitted (from what I can tell) to having the conversation about the teacher with the police officer in question. he has admitted to at the very least opining on the case. That alone is a problem no?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
So as far as you guys are concerned the media has blown this out of proportion and we should just let it go away?

Heisy has admitted (from what I can tell) to having the conversation about the teacher with the police officer in question. he has admitted to at the very least opining on the case. That alone is a problem no?


To point one: No, not at all. We have to find out how the sloppy and slanderous memo got leaked. We really need to do that. The threat to democracy presented by the Toronto police, at two levels (the chief and the union), is serious, and this appears to be another manifestation of that threat.

To point two: Unless we have some actual words before us, who knows? Personally, I also hope that the teacher doesn't go to jail because I'm not really keen on sending anyone to jail. For saying that, Mishei, do you think that I should be investigated?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the really controversial statement that everyone is up in arms about is that the guy allegedly said that he couldn't see how anyone could have sexual feelings for a baby in diapers, but that he could see how someone could for a beautiful 8 year-old body. I'm paraphrasing because I heard it on the radio yesterday (and today too) so I don't remember the exact words.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, that is (apparently) what the officer's memo says.

It isn't what Heisey said: it's what the leaked memo says.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PS: I don't personally find that statement -- in whatever form it actually was made, which we are unlikely ever to know -- offensive at all. I can imagine saying something like that.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, that's right, that's why I wrote "allegedly said".

And actually, Heisey does explain himself, quite well. If he did say it, it probably wasn't the brightest thing to do since it's so easy to be misunderstood on such an emotionally-charged subject. But I have no doubt that his comment, if he made it, was either misrepresented or taken totally out of context of the conversation.

I wouldn't put anything past Toronto cops, frankly.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 15 January 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lets see if I have this straight. Leaking a memo which is not a crime nor was it apparently coded a confidential or secret memo(since copies were given to the chair of the police services board at the time and he just filed it after discussing it with a few members) is bad and should be invesitgated with a inquiry. But a man who may have talked about a ongoing invesitgation in a inproper manner and violated various codes of conduct for police investigations and what the police services board members can or cannot do is ok and should not be investigated?
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 15 January 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just remember smear campaigns go both ways. It could be called a smear campaign against Norm Gardner for leaking that he received free ammo when everyone above him told him it was ok and nothing to worry about. You cant say its a legitimate whistle blowing when its someone u dont like and a smear leak when its someone you do
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 05:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

To point one: No, not at all. We have to find out how the sloppy and slanderous memo got leaked. We really need to do that. The threat to democracy presented by the Toronto police, at two levels (the chief and the union), is serious, and this appears to be another manifestation of that threat.

To point two: Unless we have some actual words before us, who knows? Personally, I also hope that the teacher doesn't go to jail because I'm not really keen on sending anyone to jail. For saying that, Mishei, do you think that I should be investigated?


Duh NOOO thankfully you are not a member of the Toronto Police Board.

And as for the alleged statement, look folks if (and I do stress IF)he made it as reported well it is offensive. Anyone being seen to in any way legitimize the sexualization of a child as a means by which to possibly excuse a perpetrator of sexual crimes is ugly in the extreme.

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bacchus, the problem here is a problem of democratic principle.

It is not possible to HAVE a democracy unless the police and military submit to civilian authority.

I don't wish to bore everyone with the reasoning behind that claim. Reject it, and give up your right to be called a democrat.

Vicious, unsubstantiated gossip -- which appears to be what we are dealing with here -- emanating from police sources and aimed at civilian overseers -- either has to be backed up with evidence or completely rejected. No serious democrat could believe otherwise.

For so long, the police in Toronto have been defended on the "nice guy" principle. "Hey! They're just regular guys, like you. Wouldn't you like to be able to do what Norm Gardner did with his gun? "

Forget it. It is time for Toronto to grow up.

Toronto is a city. It has taken me a lot of years to say this, but I now believe that Toronto is a great city. Toronto is a city in a country that claims to be a democracy. If we don't control our cops -- and other crooks -- soon, we are going to be in serious trouble.

As for Mishei's last post: I don't know what to say. What the hell did that mean?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 January 2004 06:04 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is how a police state is instituted.

First, everything anyone says is written down in police memos. Of course, it is the police interpretation which is written down, nothing is verbatim, and they are free to indulge in innuendo and lies if they want to.

The supposed conversation is then placed in "the files". It will be leaked ONLY if the person concerned obtains a position in society which the police do not like. Then we are all urged to deal with it as if it were something more than a lie, we are urged to take it seriously because it was on "police files".

WHEN YOU SPEAK TO A POLICE OFFICER, YOUR ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ADVANCE THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE POLICE.

Police files should NEVER be used to blackmail anyone; they should be used to solve crimes, and NOTHING more.

This is how the STASI operated, people.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
As for Mishei's last post: I don't know what to say. What the hell did that mean?

Come now skadal, the quote allegedly made by Heisey was allegedly done in the context of a supposed discussion with the very police officer handling the child sex abuse case.

The "memo" suugests that Heisey engaged the officer in a discussion about the case having to do with a teacher (at a private school attended by one of Heisey's children) accused of child molestation. It is there he is alleged to have "understood" how a child molestor might find the body of an 8 year old child appealing.

Some might see this as an attempt to explain even excuse such vile action.

I have worked in the child abuse field and child sexual predators like the teacher in question, sexualize children as a menas by which to rationalize their behaviour. No one should ever give credence to such thoughts.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mishei, go away and never speak to me again.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 January 2004 06:14 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one should ever give credence to such thoughts.

Are you suggesting that those of us who find this memo and the leak thereof distasteful are giving credence to such thoughts?

Anyway, the mere allegation -- whether by a police officer, or by anyone else -- that a person said something is not evidence of any wrongdoing. Or if the police were suspicious of Heisey, why didn't they investigate him in the intervening 15 months?

quote:
Some might see this as an attempt to explain even excuse such vile action.

Some might, yes. How do you see it, Mishei?

And don't skate around it: what if anything do you suspect Heisey of? Child molestation? Interfering in the course of an investigation? Both? Something else again?

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The supposed conversation is then placed in "the files". It will be leaked ONLY if the person concerned obtains a position in society which the police do not like. Then we are all urged to deal with it as if it were something more than a lie, we are urged to take it seriously because it was on "police files".

This is true. If they were so concerned about it, why didn't they follow up on it earlier? How convenient that it would be now.

My advice would be to just never talk to a police officer, period.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Christie Blatchford:
quote:
Det.-Sgt. Gillespie is an anti-child-pornography evangelist. The awful material he and the men and women of his office seize and are forced to view as a regular diet would make a zealot out of anyone. He would be highly alert to someone seeing this issue in nuances, and properly so, for one in his position.

Anyone who is passionate about an issue, particularly a cop, is unlikely to have much sympathy for a lawyer or sociologist who attempts to understand a perpetrator and is likely to miss the nuance between trying to understand how a criminal's mind works and actual sympathy for the criminal. I suspect the Heisey quote is a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation (particularly since the conversation occured at a social event, in the hospitality suite of a conference on child sexual abuse, and that both parties had probably been drinking and the cop probably didn't write down his recollections until some time later meaning they were likely coloured by his views).

There's a difference, as Heisey says, between understanding the pathology of a pedophile and agreeing with his ideas. Saying you understand how someone might sexualise a child but can't understand how he could sexualise an infant (which is the gist of what Heisey allegedly said) is not an outrageous sentiment, particularly when you consider how often you see pictures in the media of prepubescent girls wearing make up, lipstick and "adult" clothes (think of all those beauty contests for children). Given that we live in a society that sexualises children all too often it's certainly "understandable" how some individuals can develop a sexual attraction.

There's also this interesting comment in Rosie DiManno's column:

quote:
A statement issued yesterday by police Chief Julian Fantino — that he became aware of the matter discussed in the memo in September, 2002, and brought it to the attention of board chair Gardner to "deal with as he felt necessary" — is simply befuddling. Gardner told the Star yesterday that he had the memo two years ago and "filed" it. Indeed, he discussed it with at least one Star reporter last year, although that never translated into a published story. And he denied leaking the memo

So Gardner "discussed" the memo with a reporter last year. Interesting.

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's a difference, as Heisey says, between understanding the pathology of a pedophile and agreeing with his ideas. Saying you understand how someone might sexualise a child but can't understand how he could sexualise an infant (which is the gist of what Heisey allegedly said) is not an outrageous sentiment, particularly when you consider how often you see pictures in the media of prepubescent girls wearing make up, lipstick and "adult" clothes (think of all those beauty contests for children). Given that we live in a society that sexualises children all too often it's certainly "understandable" how some individuals can develop a sexual attraction.

Mycroft, this is exactly what I was thinking today when hearing about this story, but couldn't quite figure out how to express it. And I'm willing to bet that this is pretty much the gist of what he said to the cop.

I'm not sure what Blatchford's take on it is from that clip you gave (if the link was posted above somewhere, sorry, I didn't read it), but if she's pulling the "excuse the cop and get tough on the accused" thing, then I think that's pretty rich, considering that she's willing to demonize the victim of a molesting, incompetent doctor, and to give the accused in a case where he even ADMITS that he did what he's accused of doing, the benefit of the doubt.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's also unclear is whether Heisey simply mentioned in passing that an employee at his kid's school had been charged with child porn offences and he hopes he's not guilty. That would be somewhat different than asking the cop about the case (which reports about the memo *do not* say Heisey actually did).

The lesson seems to be don't have casual conversations with cops.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 January 2004 08:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least not in Toronto anyhow. Hell, they could come to your door with a search warrant and rob you.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 08:50 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some might, yes. How do you see it, Mishei?


Here is how I see it.

1. There is an unsubstantiated allegation that Mr. Heisey may have interfered with an ongoing investigation.

2. He is the Chair of the Police Services board and so holds a public trust.

THERFORE:

The police should investigate the bona fides of the allegation re interference. If heisy was meared charges should follow. If not he has some explaining to do. It does strike me as odd that no action was taken earlier and that troubles me in retrospect.

As for the alleged comment. Heisey has not denied it . He has claimed it is out of context so he should fully explain the context.

As for Skdadl, listen dear (dripping with sarcasm) i have seen too many children as victims of sexual predators. Maybe that doesn't make me objective here but until you have to hold a sobbing mother in your arms whose 7 year old child was raped you have nothing absolutely NOTHING to teach me.

And for the other insulting questions no I dont think Heisy is anything more than someone who may have said a dumb thing at a dumb time but he does owe an explanation especially in light of the fact that he has not totally disavowed the comments.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 15 January 2004 10:19 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Here is how I see it.

1. There is an unsubstantiated allegation that Mr. Heisey may have interfered with an ongoing investigation.

2. He is the Chair of the Police Services board and so holds a public trust.

THERFORE:

The police should investigate the bona fides of the allegation re interference.



Someone should report it to the police then.Oh, wait a second...

Mishei, doesn't the fact that the Chief saw the report and didn't see fit to open an investigation or lay charges tell you something?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 15 January 2004 10:30 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a naked attempt to intimidate the new police board chair, the other board members and any future members. It needs to be thoroughly investigated. As skdadl said this strikes at the very heart of a democratic society.


quote:
As for Skdadl, listen dear (dripping with sarcasm) i have seen too many children as victims of sexual predators. Maybe that doesn't make me objective here but until you have to hold a sobbing mother in your arms whose 7 year old child was raped you have nothing absolutely NOTHING to teach me.


This is puke worthy Mishei. You've outdone yourself.

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 15 January 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
This is a naked attempt to intimidate the new police board chair, the other board members and any future members. It needs to be thoroughly investigated. As skdadl said this strikes at the very heart of a democratic society.


This is a puke worthy Mishei. You've outdone yourself.



Firstly, I do not believe that Heisey did anything criminal. At best if it can be substantiated that he made comments to the investigating officer about a current case it is a matter for the police board not the police. Hence Fantino did the right thing.

Secondly, if this is such a nothing issue why the fuss? Oh of course its that irresponsible media ccreating a story then not knowing what to do about it.

Lastly jimmy, whetether or not you give a shit frankly I dont care. However for me there is no excuse for the alleged dumb statement that Heisey "may" have made. I say 'may" becuase there still may be an explanation. I just wish he would give it. But for me I have zero tolerance for anything that smacks of "understanding" sexual predators. I hope this is not what he menat in this alleged chat with the detective. I only wish he would clarify it more properly.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 January 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
1. There is an unsubstantiated allegation that Mr. Heisey may have interfered with an ongoing investigation.

Who, precisely, is alleging this? Names, please.

quote:
As for the alleged comment. Heisey has not denied it . He has claimed it is out of context so he should fully explain the context.

I thought he had explained it. Evidently, not to your satisfaction. So to whom -- other than you -- should he explain it, and why?

That's to say -- who has demanded publicly that he explain himself? Do they have any authority to so do, and if so, what is the source or legitimacy of that authority? If they have no authority to do so, why should he be expected to say anything further than he has?

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

I thought he had explained it. Evidently, not to your satisfaction. So to whom -- other than you -- should he explain it, and why?

That's to say -- who has demanded publicly that he explain himself? Do they have any authority to so do, and if so, what is the source or legitimacy of that authority? If they have no authority to do so, why should he be expected to say anything further than he has?

[ 15 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]



I see...so the fact that the story happens to have been front page news in all three Toronto papers and headline stories on Global, CBC and CTV is really just nothing?? Allegations are in the public domain. Yes from a suspect leaked memo however all agree that the memo is genuine; that it came from an officer in the sex crimes unit and that there appears to be a question as to what Mr. Heisey actually meant and at least a suggestion that he may have improperly discussed an ongoing case with a police officer while on the police services board. This is not made up and the issues remain. Otherewise it would not be a stroy would it?

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 16 January 2004 03:07 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Timing is everything.

As Jimmy pointed out, this is an obvious smear campaign, and as Jeff House pointed out, a frightening one at that.

Mishei, your debating style has transcended the annoying and entered into the realm of the repugnant.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2004 05:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
But for me I have zero tolerance for anything that smacks of "understanding" sexual predators.

Wow, good thing you were just a counsellor and not a forensic psychologist. Unfortunately, there are some pretty horrible pathologies out there that need to be "understood" by someone.

Throughout the ages, people who think have tried to understand all types of human behaviours and thought processes. Just because you don't think it's a valid field of enquiry doesn't mean that nobody else thinks so.

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 09:03 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Wow, good thing you were just a counsellor and not a forensic psychologist. Unfortunately, there are some pretty horrible pathologies out there that need to be "understood" by someone.

Throughout the ages, people who think have tried to understand all types of human behaviours and thought processes. Just because you don't think it's a valid field of enquiry doesn't mean that nobody else thinks so.

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]



Yes I certainly agree that pathology must be understood by experts in the field. I would not classify Mr. Heisy as that. He is a lawyer that sits on the Police Board.

Now given his record of service and his backround I have no doubt that he himself is not trying to excuse pedophelia but his alleged statements come off as at best dumb and at worst highly inappropriate if not offensive.

More importantly right now is that it brings his office (that of an appointed member of the Police Bord) into disreute when he allegedly discusses an ongoing case with the investigating police officer.

This coupled with what I do believe is a serious breach of confidentiality in the leaking of the memo at this highly politicized time has all the makings of a mega scandal that has to be resolved.

I noted that in today's news an investigator has been appointed. I hope the matter will now be fairly resolved and if there was criminal malfeasance in the release of the memo proper action is taken.

At the same time Mr. Heisey could at least consider offering a full explanation and at the very least an apology for giving (at this point) the impression that he may have improperly discussed a crminal matter in which he knew the accused. That alone was improper.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 09:08 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Timing is everything.

As Jimmy pointed out, this is an obvious smear campaign, and as Jeff House pointed out, a frightening one at that.

Mishei, your debating style has transcended the annoying and entered into the realm of the repugnant.


Another teacher. Thanks Tommy for ypour opion. Sadly when you dont like someone's opion you have to attack the style. That you and others find it repugnant is par for the course. As usual you toss around accusations but give no substance. That amounts to namecalling and an attempt at bullying. However, I have not accused Mr. Heisey of anything more than acting inappropriately given his position. This is not criminal but I do bellieve those with a public trust must act in a manner that does not bring any kind of disrepute to the job.

At the same time I have held that the leaking of the memo his higly suspiscious and a possible criminal offence. It needs to be fully investigated.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 January 2004 09:22 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Yes I certainly agree that pathology must be understood by experts in the field. I would not classify Mr. Heisy as that. He is a lawyer that sits on the Police Board.

Now given his record of service and his backround I have no doubt that he himself is not trying to excuse pedophelia but his alleged statements come off as at best dumb and at worst highly inappropriate if not offensive.


Mishei, we DO NOT know what Heisey's comments were. All we have is a second hand report by someone who, according to Christie Blatchford, sees things in black and white rather than in nuances.

Secondly, you would be correct if Heisey's comments were made in a formal capacity, at a public event, in a letter etc but they were private, off the cuff comments made over drinks.

quote:

More importantly right now is that it brings his office (that of an appointed member of the Police Bord) into disreute when he allegedly discusses an ongoing case with the investigating police officer.


Charges had already been laid. My "law and order" understanding is that by the time Heisey "discussed" the matter it was out of the hands of the police and in the hands of the Crown so even if Heisey was trying to influence the case it would have been too late and as a lawyer he would have known this (and we do not know whether he just mentioned it in passing or whether he actually intervened though there's nothing in the memo to suggest the latter)
quote:

At the same time Mr. Heisey could at least consider offering a full explanation and at the very least an apology for giving (at this point) the impression that he may have improperly discussed a crminal matter in which he knew the accused. That alone was improper.


If, in fact, Heisey's comments were taken out of context and distorted and the memo does not accurately reflect the conversation then what does Heisey have to apologise for?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 January 2004 10:12 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He still hasn't explained when he stopped beating his wife. Really now, the public deserves an exact timeline.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Yes I certainly agree that pathology must be understood by experts in the field. I would not classify Mr. Heisy as that. He is a lawyer that sits on the Police Board.

So only experts in the field should be able to discuss pathologies, and try to wrap their minds around how a person with a certain pathology might think, or try to understand their feelings or motivations?

I guess we shouldn't be talking about this here, then! For all we know, it could have been a casual conversation like the one we're having here, that got blown out of proportion or, just as likely, taken out of context and recorded to be used later against him if he did something that is not politically popular with the police.

quote:
Now given his record of service and his backround I have no doubt that he himself is not trying to excuse pedophelia but his alleged statements come off as at best dumb and at worst highly inappropriate if not offensive.

Well, dumb I would agree with, as I said above. It's probably not the wisest move, if you're in public service, to have casual conversations with people you don't know very well (especially cops!) about pedophilia.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 10:58 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Secondly, you would be correct if Heisey's comments were made in a formal capacity, at a public event, in a letter etc but they were private, off the cuff comments made over drinks.



No, I would be more upset that they were made privately. This is inappropriate.

Secondly, the case was before the Courts as i understand it so there was no disposition and the police officer had yet to testify.

Thirdly, Heisey has not denied making the statement. He has however claimed that the statement was reported out of context. He has provided some context to the issue surrounding the "8 year old boy" comment which has, as I stated previously brought more understanding but it was still at best an unwise remark.

That still leaves us with what is now seen in public as an attempt by a Police Board member to "discuss", with the investigating officer,
an ongoing child pornography case, to which he has some personal knowledge given the accused was his son's teacher,

In dealing with all legal matters, those in a position of authority (like Heisey) must show proper care above and beyond the average citizen. In this case he excersised at best extremely poor judgement IMHO.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really. Well obvioulsy you know exactly what was said and in the full context because certainly you wouldn't be rushing to judgement without the facts, would you?

So why don't you provide us with the conversation verbatim?

If the police recorded the conversation, held onto it for 18 months, and then released it while Norm Gardner, the police cheerleader, is being examined, then there ought to be a full investigation, charges laid and cops fired.

If this wasn't a big enough deal to do anything when he said the words he allegedly said that Mishei apparently is privilege to, than it isn't that big a deal now except to smear and destroy a character.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Allegations are in the public domain.

For the third, and last time of asking:

What, precisely, is he accused of doing, and by whom, precisely? Please frame your answer in the active, not the passive voice, and don't hide behind vague reporter-talk like "questions remain..." or "it raises questions..."

quote:
This is not made up and the issues remain. Otherewise it would not be a stroy would it?

"Where there's smoke, there's fire"? Bad logic. Allegations by way of innuendos in the media, to which neither the original officer, nor his superiors have spoken, officially? Not nearly good enough.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 11:15 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Really. Well obvioulsy you know exactly what was said and in the full context because certainly you wouldn't be rushing to judgement without the facts, would you?

So why don't you provide us with the conversation verbatim?

If the police recorded the conversation, held onto it for 18 months, and then released it while Norm Gardner, the police cheerleader, is being examined, then there ought to be a full investigation, charges laid and cops fired.

If this wasn't a big enough deal to do anything when he said the words he allegedly said that Mishei apparently is privilege to, than it isn't that big a deal now except to smear and destroy a character.



Wing Nut I thionk you need another vacation. Pray tell where have I ever claimed ti have been privy to what Heisley said??????

That is just the point. He is a public official. A respected police officer (oops i forgot here on Babble all police are the enemy...just hope you never need them when G-D forbid you find yourself in some danger)wrote an allegation dealing with the issues outlined. The allegations as written deserve attention and we as the public deseve to know what happened.

As for the leak on this we agree.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A respected police officer (oops i forgot here on Babble all police are the enemy...just hope you never need them when G-D forbid you find yourself in some danger)wrote an allegation dealing with the issues outlined.

First: I've read and re-read the Star stories. If the original memo contained any actual allegations, as opposed to a mere after-the-fact, non-verbatim account of a conversation, said allegations haven't been reported in the Star's summaries.

Second: your attempts to smear your opponents on this issue as cop-haters are pathetic, but typical. But meanwhile, you seem to be second-guessing the police.

They did nothing about this for fifteen months. If you're now urging them to do something, it's at least reassuring to see you support the principle of civilian control of the police.

But why now, in particular? Because the memo has been leaked, evidently by Gardner? But that would suggest that media and public attention should be a major factor in whether police investigate or charge someone. Do you want to encourage this kind of influence on police activities, Mishei?

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 January 2004 11:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, Mishei, you're right in a way. I shouldn't just assume he's crooked because he's a cop. I do tend to get a little too cynical when it comes to cops, but you're right, I'd want one around if I were in danger.

Of course, I learned a bit of a lesson about that when I lived in a house in a "bad" section of Kingston, and that is, if someone is breaking into your house and yelling that he's going to kill you (he had us mistaken for our next door neighbours, who were his real target) in a bad neighbourhood, the cops will take their sweet time (23 minutes) to arrive. Not to mention that if you're black in Kingston, you're pretty much open season for harassment by cops, and from what I hear about Toronto, it's not much different here.

Also, if you're a drug suspect in Toronto, there's a half-decent chance that you will be robbed or beaten during your arrest.

Does this mean all cops are bad? No, it doesn't, and I shouldn't be so sloppy about it. But you can see where it might be easy to get cynical.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

First: I've read and re-read the Star stories. If the original memo contained any actual allegations, as opposed to a mere after-the-fact, non-verbatim account of a conversation, said allegations haven't been reported in the Star's summaries.

Second: your attempts to smear your opponents on this issue as cop-haters are pathetic, but typical. But meanwhile, you seem to be second-guessing the police.

They did nothing about this for fifteen months. If you're now urging them to do something, it's at least reassuring to see you support the principle of civilian control of the police.

But why now, in particular? Because the memo has been leaked, evidently by Gardner? But that would suggest that media and public attention should be a major factor in whether police investigate or charge someone. Do you want to encourage this kind of influence on police activities, Mishei?

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]



"Evidently by Gardner"????!!! And you accuse ME of "smearing" now that's a laugh. What present evidence do you have that no one else has seen which demonstrates that Gardner leaked the memo? yes it is alleged he did discuss it with a reporter more than a year ago but that was then and it was allegedly a reporter with the Star, It was reported this week by CFTO. BTW if the allegation is true that Gardner discussed this last year with a reporter i f9ind that to be a serious matter as well.

No, what is clear here with you at least is that you are quick to accuse a right-wing cop-lover like Gardner of misdoings withoput proof but anyone else especially any progessive who may have made an error such as Heisey's is being smeared. Give me a break.

And as for how people on Babble feel about cops well Michelle is at least honest (see her above post) as is Skdadl when she posted the following:

quote:
Toronto is a city in a country that claims to be a democracy. If we don't control our cops -- and other crooks -- soon, we are going to be in serious trouble.

Comparing cops to crooks is not exactly loving them now is it?

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 January 2004 12:01 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What, precisely, is he accused of doing, and by whom, precisely? Please frame your answer in the active, not the passive voice, and don't hide behind vague reporter-talk like "questions remain..." or "it raises questions..."


TM 'lance


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 January 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Evidently by Gardner"????!!! And you accuse ME of "smearing" now that's a laugh. What evidence do you have that no one else has seen which demonstrates that Gardner leaked the memo?

Well, there's this comment by Rosie DiManno:

quote:
Gardner told the Star yesterday that he had the memo two years ago and "filed" it. Indeed, he discussed it with at least one Star reporter last year, although that never translated into a published story.

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 12:06 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Evidently by Gardner"????!!! And you accuse ME of "smearing" now that's a laugh. What evidence do you have that no one else has seen which demonstrates that Gardner leaked the memo?

Perhaps Gardner didn't leak it, though as Mycroft points out, Rosie DiManno's column suggested that he wanted the memo made public.

But that's quite beside my main point, which is that Heisey hasn't been openly accused of anything, still less by anyone with any authority to do anything about it. Or so I interpret your failure to answer my question, and your taking refuge in irrelevancies, smears, and innuendoes.

Please clarify: What was Heisey's "error"? Talking to a police officer about a case which was before the courts? Or talking -- on the officer's account -- about pedophilia?

Edited to add:

quote:
No, what is clear here with you at least is that you are quick to accuse a right-wing cop-lover like Gardner of misdoings withoput proof but anyone else especially any progessive who may have made an error such as Heisey's is being smeared.

Please to note that, since I haven't lived in Toronto since 1989, I have practically no knowledge of Gardner, and less of Heisey. So this contention of yours is still more irrelevant sheepshit.

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 12:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:

Perhaps Gardner didn't leak it, though as Mycroft points out, Rosie DiManno's column suggested that he wanted the memo made public.

But that's quite beside my main point, which is that Heisey hasn't been openly accused of anything, still less by anyone with any authority to do anything about it. Or so I interpret your failure to answer my question, and your taking refuge in irrelevancies, smears, and innuendoes.

Please clarify: What was Heisey's "error"? Talking to a police officer about a case which was before the courts? Or talking -- on the officer's account -- about pedophilia?

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]



So you were a bit too quick in making an accusation and then just say oh "Perhaps Gardner didn't leak it" as though it doesnt matter that you already smeared him. Shameful.

And as for your question, yes to the first part..that's the issue of public accountability that i have noted from the get go.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 January 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Discussing" a confidential memo with a reporter sounds like a leak to me. We don't know if Gardner leaked the memo to the CFTO but it's clear he tried to leak it to the Toronto Star.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 12:25 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
"Discussing" a confidential memo with a reporter sounds like a leak to me. We don't know if Gardner leaked the memo to the CFTO but it's clear he tried to leak it to the Toronto Star.
I agree he tried at one time and it was unconscionable but there is no evidence he leaked it to CFTO.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you were a bit too quick in making an accusation and then just say oh "Perhaps Gardner didn't leak it" as though it doesnt matter that you already smeared him. Shameful.



And yet you are convicting a man of a statement without context without knowing the conversation based on a documnet "leaked" 18 months after the conversation took place and yet you dare accuse someone else of being shameful. if only you knew what the word meant.

Still an asshole.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 16 January 2004 12:40 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
I agree he tried at one time and it was unconscionable but there is no evidence he leaked it to CFTO.

Fact: Gardner tried to leak the memo to the media.

Fact: The memo was leaked to CFTO.

Looks to me like there's circumstantial evidence making Gardner the prime suspect.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 16 January 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you were a bit too quick in making an accusation and then just say oh "Perhaps Gardner didn't leak it" as though it doesnt matter that you already smeared him. Shameful.

Gardner shamed himself a long time ago.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

And yet you are convicting a man of a statement without context without knowing the conversation based on a documnet "leaked" 18 months after the conversation took place and yet you dare accuse someone else of being shameful. if only you knew what the word meant.

Still an asshole.


Still acting like a petulant child namecalling as a means to ridicule...Can you please demonstrate to all where I have in any way "convicted" anyone here. Then juxtapose that with the assertions made against Gardner. And if you can try to grow up as well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 January 2004 03:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
You are an ASSHOLE...ASSHOLE

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Petulant name calling"?

You can't even criticize without being a hypocrite.

Mishei: "In dealing with all legal matters, those in a position of authority (like Heisey) must show proper care above and beyond the average citizen. In this case he excersised at best extremely poor judgement IMHO."

Without knowing the details beyond media coverage you ahve already made a judgement. And "at best" yet. Very fair of you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 16 January 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Question: Is there a reason that Gardner should have had a copy of that memo in the first place?

Does the Police Serives Board members usually get memos relating to day to day police investigations.

I'm sure they do have duties that requires them to examine police documents, but would this be one of those cases?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 16 January 2004 03:47 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for Skdadl, listen dear (dripping with sarcasm) i have seen too many children as victims of sexual predators. Maybe that doesn't make me objective here but until you have to hold a sobbing mother in your arms whose 7 year old child was raped you have nothing absolutely NOTHING to teach me.


Mishei old chum (absolutely dipped in sarcasm) I worked in childrens mental health for twenty years and have enountered my share of sexual abuse victims too. I was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child and was raped myself, so maybe I can teach you something. If you're incapable of trying to understand child sexual predators, then you're a pretty limited social worker. Even after my own experiences, if I couldn't be objective about my job I'd find another line of work. It's that kind of narrow focussed thinking, a remark or an impression taken out of context, that leads to bad forensics, witch hunts, and wrongful convictions. If you're really a social worker in childrens services, (and not a professional paid pamphleteer for a religious/cultural lobby group for instance) then you will have heard of Dr. Fred Matthews, an internationally regarded expert on child sexual abuse. (he does bother to objectively understand pedophiles) He once said to me (at a lecture on childhood sexual abuse no less) that he finds children beautiful, and regrets that we live in a world where he can't just sit and watch them play in a park without being regarded with suspicion. Gee Mishei, should we call the CAS on him??

By the way, look at your quote above. You failed to capitalize the "I".


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 16 January 2004 03:58 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gee Mishei, should we call the CAS on him??

Maybe you should be investigated as an accessory for not reporting him.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Plainly, oldgoat, Dr. Matthews became an "expert on child sexual abuse" only in order that he could get close to children and spend a lot of time with them. Why else?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 04:16 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:

Mishei old chum (absolutely dipped in sarcasm) I worked in childrens mental health for twenty years and have enountered my share of sexual abuse victims too. I was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child and was raped myself, so maybe I can teach you something. If you're incapable of trying to understand child sexual predators, then you're a pretty limited social worker. Even after my own experiences, if I couldn't be objective about my job I'd find another line of work. It's that kind of narrow focussed thinking, a remark or an impression taken out of context, that leads to bad forensics, witch hunts, and wrongful convictions. If you're really a social worker in childrens services, (and not a professional paid pamphleteer for a religious/cultural lobby group for instance) then you will have heard of Dr. Fred Matthews, an internationally regarded expert on child sexual abuse. (he does bother to objectively understand pedophiles) He once said to me (at a lecture on childhood sexual abuse no less) that he finds children beautiful, and regrets that we live in a world where he can't just sit and watch them play in a park without being regarded with suspicion. Gee Mishei, should we call the CAS on him??

By the way, look at your quote above. You failed to capitalize the "I".



Im not sure where I have ever indicated that we should call the police on anyone. And yes of course I have heard of Fred Matthews. His statement is perfectly acceptable. It had nothing whatsoever to do with child predators only the beauty of children which we all should cherish.

I would ask people here on their high horse to look and see where I have ever suggested that Mr. heisey's alleged action were criminal. Never said it never would. But it doesnt matter what I post only what you want to accuse me of in this very sensitive debate.

I stand by my position. It was improper of Mr. Heisey to have allegedly engaged the police officer in a discussion on a matter to which he may have some personal connection when he was at the same time a member of the police board. You can disagree with my position but to claim that I hold Heisey's alleged statements as criminal is wrong and just an attempt to derail the issue IMHO.

BTW, spelling flames are lame.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would ask people here on their high horse to look and see where I have ever suggested that Mr. heisey's alleged action were criminal. Never said it never would.

You haven't needed to.

quote:
Heisie's rebuttal is till very weak. He has not denied discussing the case but has claimed his comments were taken out of context.

Yes the leak is suspiscious but lets not lose sight of the fact that if there are even grains of truth here Heisie has a responsiblity to explain exactly how the comments were misunderstood.


quote:
However I remain very uncomfortable with Heisie's unwillingness to tell the entire story.

quote:
So let him explain fully what the context may have been. I for one have not seen a full explanation despite what you have posted here. It did not explain the context. That will settle one issue.

quote:
And as for the alleged statement, look folks if (and I do stress IF)he made it as reported well it is offensive. Anyone being seen to in any way legitimize the sexualization of a child as a means by which to possibly excuse a perpetrator of sexual crimes is ugly in the extreme.

quote:
It is there he is alleged to have "understood" how a child molestor might find the body of an 8 year old child appealing.

Some might see this as an attempt to explain even excuse such vile action.


quote:
As for the alleged comment. Heisey has not denied it . He has claimed it is out of context so he should fully explain the context.

quote:
However for me there is no excuse for the alleged dumb statement that Heisey "may" have made. I say 'may" becuase there still may be an explanation. I just wish he would give it. But for me I have zero tolerance for anything that smacks of "understanding" sexual predators. I hope this is not what he menat in this alleged chat with the detective. I only wish he would clarify it more properly.

quote:
Yes from a suspect leaked memo however all agree that the memo is genuine; that it came from an officer in the sex crimes unit and that there appears to be a question as to what Mr. Heisey actually meant ...

quote:
Yes I certainly agree that pathology must be understood by experts in the field. I would not classify Mr. Heisy as that. He is a lawyer that sits on the Police Board.

Now given his record of service and his backround I have no doubt that he himself is not trying to excuse pedophelia but his alleged statements come off as at best dumb and at worst highly inappropriate if not offensive.


quote:
Thirdly, Heisey has not denied making the statement. He has however claimed that the statement was reported out of context. He has provided some context to the issue surrounding the "8 year old boy" comment which has, as I stated previously brought more understanding but it was still at best an unwise remark.

Implication and innuendo, not accusation, have been your style here. Admittedly, as others have criticized (or sought clarification of) your position, you've emphasized the possible impropriety of his discussing a case with the investigating officer. You still haven't dropped your demand that he discuss the allleged substance of what he said, despite your apparent concession that:

quote:
Pray tell where have I ever claimed ti have been privy to what Heisley said??????

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 04:35 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not to beat a dead horse but in none of these quotes is there any inference of criminal wrongdoing. Nowhere Nada!! His alleged actions are in no way criminal.

However the leaking of the memo and any pssible repercussions may very well be.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
His alleged actions are in no way criminal.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Now: why should he have to explain the content of what he said -- as distinct from the fact that he talked to an officer about a case before the courts?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heisey was attending a Conference on sex crimes run by the Police Department. I think it is an atrocity that:

1) The officer created a memorandum of a conversation with no possible criminal ramifications; he did it so that the police could have dirt to use when they deemed the timing right.

2) Having created this memorandum without showing it to Heisey, the officer was in no way doing his job; and his decision to pass it on to Chief Fantino was utterly egregious.

3) Then Fantino passed it on to Gardner. Why?
The head of the Polices Services Board has no jurisdiction over the conversations of other Board members. No, Fantino did it so Gardner could USE it politically. If there really were something wrongful about the conversation beyond providing political ammo for the Right, Fantino would have directed the appropriate police officers to investigate.

4) Gardner, according to the DiManno story sited above DID try to use it by discussing it with the press. It would be EXTREMELY interesting to know what was the timing and context of his decision to do so.

The police have no business collecting the opinions of anyone. They are not paid to do that, they are paid to solve crimes. I guarantee all Babblers that they would not wish police officers, who often have a high school education only, with characterizing our opinions about ANYTHING. This was how J. Edgar Hoover worked, too; the threat of blackmail coupled with half-true, spun stories about his opponents. At the end, no politician would dare to remove him; the files were just too voluminous.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 16 January 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps Fantino should be investigated for passing this report on to Gardiner and Gardiner should be investigated for trying to leak it. These folks are so bold to think they can get away with anything (probably because they keep getting away with everything).
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 05:15 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Question: Is there a reason that Gardner should have had a copy of that memo in the first place? Does the Police Serives Board members usually get memos relating to day to day police investigations.I'm sure they do have duties that requires them to examine police documents, but would this be one of those cases

Yes this would be one of these cases as a member of the polices services board talked about a ongoing invesitigation with the cop in charge. Thus the head of the polices services board (Gardner) was given a copy of it to see, I assume, if there was a violation of any services board guidelines, discussed it with other board members and filed it. He admits talking about it with a star reporter but we dont know what was said or even if it was a 'no comment' reply to a question by a reporter.

Its a moot point tho, an invesitigation into heisey's behavior is being started to see if he broke any guidelines and should be reprimanded, fired, etc, same as Gardner is undergoing now.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bacchus' post overlooks one telling detail. Fantino did not give the memorandum to the Police Services Board.

The Police Services Board receives documents from time to time. These are LOGGED IN, and circulated to all members of the Board.

Fantino slipped the memorandum to Gardner without going through the Board's procedure for official business.

That is because it wasn't official business, it was an attempt to provide political ammunition to Gardner, ammunition which was wrongfully gathered at public expense by a salaried police officer.

The whole Gardner regime stunk, and Fantino was a part of it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No one suggested you did say he did anything illegal, mishei.

One need not make a finding of criminality to be guilty of rushing to judgement. That is what I said you did. I said you rushed to judgement with no more information as to the conversation as the rest of us.

Then in your trademark hypocritical fashion, you accuse 'lance of "shameful" behaviour for doing exactly what you did.

As I suggested earlier, if you were familar with the definition of the word "shame" you would keep your mouth shut more often.

Do yourself a favor and read Jeff's last two comments.

I would suggest he is right on.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting Jeff, I did not know that the manner in which gardner received it had been reported nor did i know there was a specific mechanism in place for sharing reports. This would colour things
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Several colleagues of mine have been looking into this. They tell me there is no record of Fantino alerting the Board, as an entity, of the Heisey Report.


That, as well as the fact that nothing was done for many months after the Report was created, make me extremely doubtful that Fantino's act had any legitimacy.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then in your trademark hypocritical fashion, you accuse 'lance of "shameful" behaviour for doing exactly what you did.

Er, ahem. Yeah but WingNut, there's at least some independent evidence that my (possibly rash) contention was right. I mean, "exactly"? Careful with that brush, eh bud?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hopefully they will investigate that as part of their official investigation into heisey's actions. Prob be exciting reading all around. Somehow I dont think anyone from the board services in the past 10 years should be anywhere near it now. A clean slate completely
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2004 06:13 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hopefully they will investigate that as part of their official investigation into heisey's actions.

No, it should be investigated quite apart from Heisey's "actions".

There appears to be a pattern of leaks which smear and discredit police critics who have the legal duty to oversee the police. This political use of information gathered by officers on the public payroll is deeply repugnant in a democratic society.

That has to be the focus of investigation, not some comments someone made two years ago which police want to use to score political points.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 06:15 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So far as you know, jeff, what laws or codes of conduct or whatever would govern this kind of thing? Assuming they figure out who the leaker is, what would they get him on?

(edited for really embarrassing grammatical lapse)

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 January 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lance, it is hard to say right now what laws have been broken, if any.

But I do not think it is compatible with the status of police officer that someone is involved in the selective release of police files.

And, of course, the law requires that any police officer, from chief of police on down, not be involved in any sort of political activity.

If it was Gardner who leaked, he has certainly showed he cannot be trusted with sensitive documents. Misuse of office may not break a law, but it surely shows that the person doesn't merit further public employment.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it was Gardner who leaked, he has certainly showed he cannot be trusted with sensitive documents. Misuse of office may not break a law, but it surely shows that the person doesn't merit further public employment.


True enough but the same applies to heisey if he was interfering or inserting himself into a ongoing investigation, no matter how long ago the offense occured. If he cant keep out of things, he shouldnt be in a position to interfere (the same goes for judges, politicians etc)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:


True enough but the same applies to heisey if he was interfering or inserting himself into a ongoing investigation, no matter how long ago the offense occured. If he cant keep out of things, he shouldnt be in a position to interfere (the same goes for judges, politicians etc)


Careful acchus many here will not like what you have posted.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 16 January 2004 07:13 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gardner's cred is seriously in question, as the two other members of the police board he claims to have shown the memo to, claim he is full of shit.


Has the mayor made any comment?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 16 January 2004 07:36 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Careful acchus many here will not like what you have posted.


So, let me get this straight . . . your theory is that there is a credible chance that Heisey is actually a peadophile, who blurted out that fact at a conference on child sexual abuse, to a cop, and after 18 months of investigation by the police, and a previous attempt by Gardner to leak the memo, rather than make the memo known in an offical manner, or even charge Heisey with some kind of criminal charge if warranted, the memo is instead leaked to the media!!

Now, we know that you are not "accusing" Heisey of anything, but you believe that this theory has more credibility that the theory that someone, maybe Gardner, is trying to play politics with some out of context information in a memo.

Do I have this correct?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 08:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Careful acchus many here will not like what you have posted.

Actually it is quite different. He uses the words "if" and doesn't make any judgements. As opposed to "will" and another ludricous assumption.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 08:47 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok I will clarify. If you apply a criteria to Gardner that his receipt of a memo and talking to the star about it is a lapse in judgement that should cost him credibility then so should that criteria be applied to Heisey for talking about a ongoing case with a police officer in charge of said case. Both occured awhile ago, both call their judgement in question. Both should be investigated as should the present leak about the memo. You cannot apply one criteria to someone you dont like and a different one for someone you do like.

Personally I think Gardner is too much of a wannabe cop to be objective but I dont think Heisey is objective either. They should both go and make the police services board elected positions or a mix of elected and appointed. Say 1 appointee from the police, 1 from the city, 1 from the province and 4 elected.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:


So, let me get this straight . . . your theory is that there is a credible chance that Heisey is actually a peadophile, who blurted out that fact at a conference on child sexual abuse, to a cop, and after 18 months of investigation by the police, and a previous attempt by Gardner to leak the memo, rather than make the memo known in an offical manner, or even charge Heisey with some kind of criminal charge if warranted, the memo is instead leaked to the media!!

Now, we know that you are not "accusing" Heisey of anything, but you believe that this theory has more credibility that the theory that someone, maybe Gardner, is trying to play politics with some out of context information in a memo.

Do I have this correct?



NO not even close. Why would I think such a thing. My only comment was that he made a comment to a cop that was unwise and in so doing discussed an ongoing legal case as police Board member. Where have I ever said anything more. Other than what some here have accused me of claiming . That junk comes from their fertile imagination

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 16 January 2004 09:05 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Actually it is quite different. He uses the words "if" and doesn't make any judgements. As opposed to "will" and another ludricous assumption.


I have alwayd used words like "alleged" and "may"...Please point out where I have made a judgement.

To help you out just scroll way way up near the beginning and note what I posted here:

quote:
Now given his record of service and his backround I have no doubt that he himself is not trying to excuse pedophelia but his alleged statements come off as at best dumb and at worst highly inappropriate if not offensive.


Do you know what "alleged" means WN?

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]

[ 16 January 2004: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 January 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless I'm missing something, there are no allegations against Mr. Heisey.

That was 'lance who, I agree, I hit with a wide brush. Sorry 'lance.

The allegations are yours, alone, Mishei. And you, without any more evudence than what has been reported, have already declared him guilt of "at best bad judgement" leaving open everythingon your way to worst.

As usual, Mishei, first you accuse and then you dance. I can only imagine how tired the orchestra must be.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 16 January 2004 10:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So let me get this straight Mishei...you have incontrovertible evidence that Heisey is an inveterate pedophile who admitted openly to lusting after 8-year old boys and should be put to death? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm more than willing to accept I may have misinterpreted you)...still, I think this is a rather extreme position...
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 16 January 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Um I may be new new Bable, but is Mishei the Babble whipping boy? Because I really dont see him saying anywhere that heisey is a paedophile, just dumb to have ventured where he shouldnt have, given his position at the time.

A lot of us are jumping to crap all over heisey, gardner, mishei, fantino without anyone knowing anything for sure. Why make it worse but making mishei sound that radical?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 16 January 2004 10:47 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Um I may be new new Bable, but is Mishei the Babble whipping boy?

Actually yes. He used to spend a fortune on certain "specialized phone services" to get talked to this way, but he finds this much more satisfying.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 January 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As usual, Mishei, first you accuse and then you dance. I can only imagine how tired the orchestra must be.

I'm certainly tired of waiting for him to answer my question...

quote:
Now: why should he have to explain the content of what he said -- as distinct from the fact that he talked to an officer about a case before the courts?

... and since I'm now convinced he never will answer it, I'll withdraw it, and withdraw from this increasingly pointless discussion. And pour myself a nice glass of *plonk*.

But to everyone who somehow maintains the patience to argue with Mishei, month in and month out, and now year in and year out -- I'm in awe. How do you manage it, without regularly pounding your head on the keyboard?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 January 2004 12:18 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. Someone has gone beyond avoiding the ME threads and has come out and "plonked" Mishei. Is this a babble first?

al-Qa'bong
Self Portrait


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 17 January 2004 12:58 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cops leaking old internal memos, Julian Fantino, the police association, Case Ootes, Norm Gardiner, CFTO News....hmmmmm...my bullshit detection meter is reading an 11 on a scale of 10!

From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 17 January 2004 01:12 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
discussed an ongoing legal case as police Board member

Not exactly. A bit "mish"leading. The Toronto Star report says,
quote:
Gillespie states Heisey approached him at a social event during a sex crimes conference and mentioned the case of a teacher from his son's school who was charged (and later convicted) with possessing child pornography.
Granted Heisey was on the Police Board and granted he was at that conference because he was a member of the Police Board, but he raised the issue as a concerned parent.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 17 January 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Jim Coyle writes:

quote:
The power of that memo was always political — the merest suggestion of a sympathy for pedophilia being enough to undo most careers. So it was only after the reform-minded Heisey was made chair that the missile was launched.

To all appearances, the leak was motivated by malice. Heisey is also being publicly humiliated in one of the worst possible ways on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence.

There is no tape of the exchange. The officer did not make notes as Heisey spoke. Rather, he wrote his memo later — reconstructing the exchange after the fact. What is almost invariably lost in that kind of note-taking is both accuracy and context — the preambles, the qualifiers, the attributions, the hypothesizing.

As a result, Alan Heisey finds himself in the preposterous position of having to defend — 15 months after the fact — remarks that were quite conceivably misconstrued in the first place, and quite possibly inaccurately recorded afterwards.

But despite their dubious genesis, these remarks are surrounded by quotation marks in newspapers, as though they came straight from Hansard, and sourced, in ever-escalating degrees of authority, from first a "memo," then "a document."

It is a flimsy reed on which to hang someone with a long record of integrity and public service. And it is not to condemn the officer to say that his notes are perhaps being invested with more clout than they merit.

Even contemporaneous note-taking is difficult. In a break in any courtroom, you will find even experienced reporters comparing scribblings, trying to confirm that they heard what they thought they did, and that they got it down accurately.

It is not for nothing reporters do this. One of the few published assessments of note-taking by journalists was done by the University of Regina after Colin Thatcher's murder trial in 1984. The school compared quotes used in media reports with court transcripts and found that almost half were inaccurate and almost half of the inaccurate quotes sufficiently erroneous as to distort meaning.

Even, however, if the remarks attributed to Heisey were made largely as reported, it is not difficult to imagine the innocuous sentiment behind them.

It is not uncommon, when something as shocking as the pornography charges are laid in connection with a school, for those with children in attendance there to want to discuss it, to try to understand it. When a similar thing happened two summers ago to a circle of my acquaintance, it was practically all the parents could talk about.

It seemed also fairly common for those parents to cut the benefit of the doubt to an accused who was familiar to them — as opposed to the scruffy sorts easily labelled "perverts" by the tabloids. I heard many parents say they hoped the allegations were not true, and that if they were that the accused they had known and liked got help.

Moreover, it is hardly evidence of sexual deviance to react with different magnitudes of revulsion to the abuse of ever-younger children. Pedophilia of any sort sickens and appalls. The abuse of diapered infants is off the charts of comprehension.

There's little doubt Heisey would have been wiser to have refrained from discussing a matter under investigation with police. But at least as troubling as anything he allegedly did or said is the fact of the memo leak, a culture that appears to condone this kind of covert monitoring by police of their civilian masters, and the suggestion that such practices are not extraordinary.


[ 17 January 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]

[ 17 January 2004: Message edited by: Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 17 January 2004 03:37 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
John Barber:
quote:
Everyone shares Mr. Fantino's pain when confronted with yet more evidence that elements in the police service continue to pursue sleazy vendettas against their perceived enemies. Whether it's former police union boss Craig Bromell promising to "target our enemies" or the still-unidentified creeps circulating ridiculous innuendo about pedophilia, police vendettas have given Torontonians ample opportunity in recent years to feel very badly indeed.

quote:

Reviewing both leaked memos, the first from Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie of the sex-crimes unit and the second from Staff Superintendent Rocky Cleveland, one gets the queasy feeling that Mr. Heisey's crime at that conference two years ago was overestimating his auditors.

As a lawyer conditioned to the conventions of open and sophisticated dialogue, Mr. Heisey went to the conference to learn more about sex crimes, and was astonished when police told him that some involved babies. According to his own account of the conversation, he said that he understood some perverts exploit children but never expressed approval of the practice. "It disgusts me," he said.

But that encounter inspired Det.-Sgt. Gillespie to type up a sarcastic memo identifying "Mr. A Milliken Heisey" as an ignoramus, commenting on ". . . the beautiful body of an 8-year-old."

"What's next," Staff-Supt. Cleveland wondered in a note forwarding the Gillespie report to Chief Fantino, "the benefits of mind-expanding LSD and Heroin?"

The board doesn't need a lawyer to quash these inane observations; a rookie kindergarten teacher could do it. But the process of discovering what happened to the memos -- how they were used and by whom -- will be much trickier.

The investigation won't go anywhere if it doesn't begin with Norm Gardner, the deposed police board chair. In his memo to the chief, Staff-Supt. Cleveland noted that Mr. Gardner, then board chair, was asking about the case against Mr. Heisey even before the alleged conversation was recorded. Chief Fantino said this week that he "took the matter to the board chair" as soon as he heard about it -- and left it there. Mr. Gardner said he filed the memos away and forgot about them.



From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 17 January 2004 03:40 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Non-partisan partisan:
Granted Heisey was on the Police Board and granted he was at that conference because he was a member of the Police Board, but he raised the issue as a concerned parent.
I see so he just took off his hat as a police board member. You can't do that.

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 January 2004 02:41 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see nothing wrong with Heisey discussing a case with a cop. He was at a Conference on sex crimes, for Pete's sake! The case was before the Courts, and the Crown had carriage of the matter.

So nothing Heisey said could influence any decision maker.

If they didn't want him discussing sex crimes, they shouldn't have asked him to the Conference.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 18 January 2004 03:22 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fantino: the king of smear and grand inquisitor of children... I dug this one up lest anyone is not aware of this part of Fantino's illustrious past.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 January 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed, N-PP.

I recall reading in either Now or Eye several weeks ago that Heisey was actually quite progressive, and that we might now have some hope of reforming the more militantly fascistic tendencies of the Metro force.

I recall at the time wondering when the smear campaign against him would begin.

I didn't have to wait too long.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 18 January 2004 09:21 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Despite my concerns I do believe that there is something bizarre about this entire mess. Hoepfully the lawyer appointed to investigate it will shed light on the matter.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 19 January 2004 04:53 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Another teacher. Thanks Tommy for ypour opion. Sadly when you dont like someone's opion you have to attack the style. That you and others find it repugnant is par for the course. As usual you toss around accusations but give no substance. That amounts to namecalling and an attempt at bullying. However, I have not accused Mr. Heisey of anything more than acting inappropriately given his position. This is not criminal but I do bellieve those with a public trust must act in a manner that does not bring any kind of disrepute to the job.
At the same time I have held that the leaking of the memo his higly suspiscious and a possible criminal offence. It needs to be fully investigated.


Yes, fully investigated. But not before Heisey stands trial for witchcraft.

And yes, I appologize for attempting to teach you. It was rather arrogant for this dilletant to try when skilled professionals have so obviously, and sadly failed.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 January 2004 08:25 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
Despite my concerns I do believe that there is something bizarre about this entire mess. Hoepfully the lawyer appointed to investigate it will shed light on the matter.

What is that "something" that you think is bizarre? That a memo of a conversation about pedophilia with a participant at a sex crimes conference, written by a police officer well after the conversation took place, should be leaked to the press once the subject of the memo did something politically unpopular with the police, after they sat on it for a couple of years and deemed it unworthy of investigation?

Yeah, I think that's pretty bizarre too.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 19 January 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More bizarre goings-on involving Fantino and the Board...
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 19 January 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If memory serves, I remember when Lastman, Gardiner and Fantino all lied about Fantino being offered the job (without an interview) just before he accepted the job.

[ 19 January 2004: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 01 March 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gardner was wrong to accept ammo, inquiry finds

quote:
Toronto — A public inquiry has found that the former head of the Toronto Police Services Board Norm Gardner broke the rules when he accepted nearly 6,000 rounds of ammunition free-of-charge from the Police College.

In a decision released Monday, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services said that Gardner contravened the board's code of conduct by taking the free bullets.

Gardner voluntarily stepped down from his position last year after it was revealed that he had accepted a gun as a gift from a firearms manufacturer.

He later acknowledged that he also received 5,700 rounds of ammunition from the Police College, but argued that he considered them to be one of the perks of his position.


[ 01 March 2004: Message edited by: Scott ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 01 March 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
5700 bullets? What's this guy doing? Going to Iraq or something?
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca