I don't know if that necessarily has any impact on the chain events in this particular case or even if it's true or not, but I am curious. Does anyone know?
1, It's true. It was a story, that was confirmed by the Officer. Supported by his notes.
2, It was also confirmed by Jack and Olivia.
3, It was most definitely an attempt to smear Jack.
4, It's news to anyone that cares about 'morals'.
5, After asking a York Regional Officer, it was not uncommon for Officers to keep old note books. Although policy now is, they must be turned in, and saved. This is a York regional Policy and is not the policy of all Police services.
6, The notes, would indicate that he was caught in a compromising position. But in my opinion, he was not charged, nor tried, so he is not guilty of any crime.
7, He has no right to privacy on the matter.
They're a business. You either run your business ethically, and tell your customers the truth, or you will end up shut down.
Why is the 'truth' in question here? Jack and Olivia confirmed it. The notes and the Officer confirmed it.
We're talking about The Sun here. They've been running an unethical business for quite some time now.
I'm sure you believe that. But I suspect that's based more on your ideology, than fact.
But you might want to rethink your condemnation of Sun media...
National Post columnist Jonathan Kay confirmed Sunday that he was approached by a Liberal Party insider with the same story on Oct. 12, 2008.
"I was shown a copy of a Liberal Party lawyer's Access To Information request seeking details of the massage bust - and I have retained that ATI request in my files," Kay told The Gazette on Sunday. Kay wouldn't say who the lawyer is, saying he promised the person his or her name wouldn't come out.
He said he didn't run with the story in 2008 because he couldn't confirm it.
From a Liberal? Who knew they were that slimy.
Kay couldn't confirm it in 2008, so he passed.
Sun Media could confirm it in 2011, so they ran with it.
It's dirty journalism, but it's still journalism.
And I might add, far better than the yellow journalism you use.
It's an attack on democracy. The freedom of the press exists to serve democracy.
I'm glad we agree on something.
They could make it available in an encrypted form as well, and that would be available to the public. It's still restricting the flow of information.
Sometimes that's a necessity.
Attacking directly or indirectly is still attacking.
You think restriction is an attack, I don't. I recognize the necessity of restricting information for various reasons from treaty negotiations, to covert operations.
And you and I are made poor whenever that happens. It's all in the same vein.
I agree and disagree. I still don't see it in the same vein, for one. But yes, I'd love to know some things, but I recognize that fact, that sometimes we just can't be kept abreast for reasons beyond our pay grade.
Maybe it's from having served, I don't know. I do see your point though, and I can respect what you're saying, but I can't fully agree.