• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Response's To "Ruxted On The Media's Handling Of Cpl. Boneca's Death"

Signalman150

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Probum,

Well said sir.  I was trying to cobble something together in a similar vein, and couldn't do it.

 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,381
Points
1,260
Quote,
This is how it stands: you've got competing versions of Cpl. Boneca's frame of mind. Both of them are out there - Cpl. Boneca's words and those of his father

His words said no such thing...........they would be nothing worse than I would say after a long day at work with 20 minutes left to go,....only his day is 6 months.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
Slain soldier felt `misled'
Jul. 10, 2006. 11:07 AM  Toronto Star Headline - Statement - presented as fact.  No indication of opinion.

An honest headline - and one that could have been printed in larger typeface catching more eyes - would have been [size=10pt]"Misled?" [/size] with as sub-heading "Slain Soldier's Girlfriend's Father Believes That Cpl. Boneca Felt Misled".

That would have been a fair presentation of the story.

Mr. Decorte has a right to his opinion, has a right to have his voice heard and the press surely has a right to report Mr. Decorte's opinion.  But opinion is not fact, no matter how many people repeat it.


 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
.
SetBax said:
Anyway, been a pleasure chatting with you guys. Can you please ban me now? I want to know what it feels like to live under a totalitarian regime, where only one opinion - the dominant opinion - is allowed to survive.
Please? Pretty please?

Sorry. No need. You actually put forth some points you believed in. Discussion took place, no one came off the winner or loser, but you didn't resort to the fishing rod like annon did. You'll have to get your kicks somewhere else, I guess.


And with that we'll put the temp lock on 'er till people cool off.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
We will be reopening this thread at 19:30 EDT. Read and heed the following rules. No mercy will be shown to contravenors, no steps on the ladder, straight to BAN.

No name calling or pedigree pouncing. Back your argument with facts, and keep it civil. No one line shots and no drive by swipes. If you can't contribute in a civilized manner, stay clear of the thread. If you feel it's getting to you, back off and take a breather. If you can't follow these simple rules, expect your post to disappear. Continue in that vein, and the same fate awaits you. We welcome all contributors, but don't get hung up and spin your wheels, harping on the same point. The thread and discussion has to progress. When it no longer does, it gets locked for good.

Remember why we're here folks. We lost one of our own. Let's not debase his memory with petty arguments
.

 
D

Dogstar

Guest
I was asked by the media about Cpl. Boneca. When I told the army i talked they were pissed. A captain in fact removed my manhood. I am not a troll, but after years on this board my profile is now new. I am in a lot of trouble because of this. That is BS. Last year we were told by a major that we can talk to the media if we don't talk about mission details. We could say "yes army food sucks". Now we cant? I was just asked about the current situation. Are soldiers under a gag order as we fight for freedom in A-Stan. Come on O'Connor, how is the truth to get out if we leave it to the knobs in public affairs in Ottawa. All you guys with brass on your shoulders know nothing about this topic. This subject is dangerous. You can be sure this board is being watched by the army and the media too. Yet, we give the media crap because they get the story wrong? How the hell can they get it right if the army kicks us soldiers in the junk if we talk to the media? Canada has a lot to learn about growing a positive war effort in its population. Blame the army as much as you blame the media.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
943
Points
1,060
To my knowledge the policy has not changed. You are allowed to talk to the media about what you know, as long as you stay within your lanes. I've done plenty of talking to them, both in the paper and on electronic means. I've never been censored or taken to task. Same as anything else, if you start talking trash, someones going to hand you a bag and pointy stick. I'm sorry if you're in dutch with your bosses, but I certainly don't think it's as dire and Orwellian as you put it out to be.

As well, this is the second time you've put this up. It was taken down by the Mods the first time because of the inflammatory nature of your prose. Next time just leave things be. We'll leave this one up, but you better drop the vitrol and slagging in anything you post following. Just settle down and think before you post.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,634
Points
1,090
Setbax(or any other media types reading):  Quick question for you that I think is legitimate.

Using your inquisitive reporting skills and fact checking skills, why not check this out.

Most people on this board are either serving members or former members.  Now I know where I work and other CF locations, most people are not happy with the way the media has handled this.

Why not look into why so many people are pissed off?  We are not a bunch of maniac anti-press lunatics.  But we are a tight knit community that grieves whe one of our own is killed.  In combat or otherwise.  If so many people are angry with the media there is a reason.  Try figuring it out.  People here have tried to explain it but it doesen't seem to sink in.

No one here is against freedom of the press. We'd just like some accountability.

We hold certain values and things as sacred.  Maybe the media could try and respect that.


 

big bad john

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
360
After getting home from work I read through the trolling, slagging and arrogance from one of the posters, now banned, I was amazed at the boldness of some of our media outlets.  Please remember that we have lost a brother in arms.  Keep the thread going strong, but please, please have a thought and a prayer tonight for Cpl. Boneca, his family, loved ones and let us not forget his comrades still in the field.
 

Mortar guy

Sr. Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

On the other side of the coin we seem to have a herd of journalists (mostly from the Star) like Haroon Siddiqui, Linda McQuaig et al who seem to be recurring targets of Ruxted Editorials. These people are either too scared or too complacent to actually travel to Kandahar to learn something about that which they write. Yet these same people offer opinions and write stories by the boatload with a "damn the torpedoes" approach to facts. Why is it that those who've "been there/done that" seem to have opinions so vastly different from those who can't remove their pimpled arses from their swivel chairs in Toronto? Could it be because the latter aren't reporting on news but rather are pushing an agenda? Could it be that they aren't interested in facts as those would only get in the way of a good editorial? I don't know, but it certainly seems that way.

I think the shameful actions of the handful of journalists who have exploited second-hand stories and rumours to push their agenda is just another, albeit more dramatic, example of the battle between facts and agenda. And don't tell me that the words of Boneca's girlfriend's father aren't second-hand rumours. If any of the journalists who wrote the sensationalist pieces about Boneca being misled had actually bothered to double check their story with people IN AFGHANISTAN they would have had a much more balanced piece. Thankfully, at the end of the day, this all just represents another huge dent in the credibility of the Star.

MG
 

291er

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
One another point I would make.  As a soldier due to deploy within the next two weeks, the actions of the media on this matter would certainly make me think twice about wanting to talk to them in the near future.  Now we have seen some excellent reporting come out of theatre, namely Christie, and I'd hate to see that suffer from this.  The Canadian public does, to an extent, deserve to know what's going on in theatre with the troops.
I'd like to see some of the media types on here try and better their collective image and give us good reason to communicate with them in the future.
 

Roy Harding

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
big bad john said:
After getting home from work I read through the trolling, slagging and arrogance from one of the posters, now banned, I was amazed at the boldness of some of our media outlets.  Please remember that we have lost a brother in arms.  Keep the thread going strong, but please, please have a thought and a prayer tonight for Cpl. Boneca, his family, loved ones and let us not forget his comrades still in the field.

Bless you, John, for pointing out what's important.
 

Franko

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
2
Points
430
After much searching and personal debating as to weather or not I'd wade into the debacle raised by some of the reporters here who seem to think that this is a totalitarian website....a reminder, and yes I'm talking to you ( for the one's who are not of this view, please take this time to have a swig of tea or beer ):

This is a personal website owned and operated by Mike Bobbitt, it is in no way shape or form sponsored by the CF....that being said,

....he makes the rules, we implement them.

We will not stifle any posts or remarks made by anyone unless it's derogatory or inflammatory in nature, which has been the case today.

You have come here to get a few quotes here and there, mostly taken completely out of context when you do write up your articles, usually with an incomplete picture and somewhat slant depending on what news agency you work for. Don't think that the membership of this site hasn't seen it on Global, CTV and the like.

Free speech is what we as Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors have fought and died for....don't come here, on your soapbox, waving the flag that our comrades have died for whilst spitting in our faces and shyting on the military, a subject that unless you have served within is something that you know nothing about.

You don't like it, leave.



Again, this is only directed to a select few who have come here to stir up the shyte storm.

To the others who come here to gather a more complete and balanced perspective of the facts....welcome.



A reminder to all service pers here:

The official policy in regards to speaking to the media:

Openness, and Transparency


CF members and DND employees face significant challenges in their efforts to inform the public and ensure the public's right to know, while being fully aware and respectful of legal restrictions on releasing detailed information about:

    * individuals (restricted by the Privacy Act);

    * sensitive elements of military operations (restricted by the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act); and

    * issues before the courts (which is restricted by the Canada Evidence Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

While these restrictions place legal limits on the ability of the CF and DND to live up to demands for complete openness, every effort should be made to be as open and transparent as possible within the law.

To this end, CF members and DND employees at all levels shall manage their programs and activities in a manner that:

    * maximizes public and media accessibility to information regarding DND and CF policies, programs, services, operations and initiatives in a timely manner and within the law;

    * minimizes the need for the public or media to resort to the Access to Information Act as a means of obtaining information from DND or the CF; and

    * conforms to both the letter and the spirit of the Access to Information Act.

Accountability


Regardless of rank or level, CF members and DND employees are accountable to their chain of command for the accuracy and currency of the information they make available to the public.




To that end....keep it to what you know and don't speculate.

Now for the QR&Os on the subject.





19.14 – IMPROPER COMMENTS
 

19.14 – COMMENTAIRES DÉPLACÉS

(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances). (15 June 2000)
 

(1) Aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit prononcer des remarques ou des critiques tendant à discréditer un supérieur, sauf dans la mesure nécessaire pour présenter convenablement un grief aux termes du chapitre 7 (Griefs). (15 juin 2000)

(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
 

(2) Aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit faire ni ne doit dire quoi que ce soit qui :
 

(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
   

a) vu ou entendu par un membre du public, pourrait jeter le discrédit sur les Forces canadiennes ou sur l’un de ses membres;
 

(b) if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.



19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
 

19.36 – DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENT OU D’OPINION

(1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.
 

(1) Aux fins du présent article, l’adjectif «militaire» doit s’interpréter comme visant non seulement les Forces canadiennes mais aussi les forces armées de tout autre pays.

(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):
 

(2) Sous réserve de l’article 19.375 (Communications à des agences de nouvelles), aucun officier ou militaire du rang ne doit, s’il n’en a d’abord obtenu la permission aux termes de l’article 19.37 (Permission de communiquer des renseignements) :
 

(a) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
   

a) publier sous quelque forme que ce soit, communiquer directement ou indirectement ou autrement divulguer à une personne non autorisée des renseignements officiels ou le contenu d’un document officiel inédit ou classifié;
 

(b) use that information or document for a private purpose;
   

b) utiliser ce renseignement ou ce document à ses fins particulières;
 

(c) publish in any form whatever any military information or the member’s views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
   

c) publier sous quelque forme que ce soit tout renseignement de caractère militaire ou communiquer ses opinions sur un sujet militaire à des personnes non autorisées à recevoir ce renseignement ou ces opinions;
 

(d) deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
   

d) prononcer en public ou enregistrer pour être prononcés en public, soit directement, soit par le truchement de la radio ou de la télévision, une conférence, un discours ou des réponses à des questions portant sur un sujet militaire;
 

(e) prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
   

e) préparer un document ou rédiger un texte sur un sujet militaire pour être communiqué au public de vive voix ou autrement;
 

(f) publish the member’s opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
   

f) publier ses opinions sur une question militaire faisant l’objet d’une étude de la part des autorités supérieures;
 

(g) take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member’s superiors;
   

g) participer publiquement à une discussion portant sur des ordres, règlements ou directives émanant de ses supérieurs;
 

(h) disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
   

h) divulguer à une personne non autorisée à le recevoir, sans l’autorisation préalable du ministère, de l’organisme ou de tout autre corps intéressé, un renseignement obtenu dans l’exercice de ses fonctions officielles alors qu’il est détaché, affecté ou prêté à ce ministère, cet organisme ou ce corps;
 

(i) furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
   

i) fournir à toute personne non autorisée à les recevoir des rapports, de la correspondance ou d’autres documents officiels ou des copies de ceux-ci;
 

(j) publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
   

j) publier par écrit, prononcer un discours ou participer à une émission radiodiffusée ou télévisée traitant de quelque façon que ce soit de sujets de nature controversable, relatifs à d’autres ministères de la fonction publique ou à des questions de politiques gouvernementales.

(3) This article does not apply to a writing, lecture, address or broadcast confined exclusively to members of the Canadian Forces.
 

(3) Le présent article ne s’applique pas à un écrit, un discours ou une émission radiodiffusée ou télévisée destiné exclusivement à des militaires des Forces canadiennes.

(M)(25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)
 

(M)(25 mai 2000 en vigueur le 15 juin 2000)

19.37 – PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION
 

19.37 – PERMISSION DE COMMUNIQUER DES RENSEIGNEMENTS

(1) Permission for the purposes of article 19.36 (Disclosure of Information or Opinion) may be granted by the Chief of the Defence Staff or such other authority as he may designate.
 

(1) La permission aux fins de l’article 19.36 (Divulgation de renseignement ou d’opinion) peut être accordée par le chef d’état-major de la défense ou toute autre autorité qu’il peut désigner à cette fin.

(2) Permission given under paragraph (1):
 

(2) Toute permission accordée en vertu de l’alinéa (1) :
 

(a) does not have the effect of endorsing anything said or done by the person to whom it is given;
   

a) ne comporte pas l’approbation de ce qui a été dit ou fait par la personne à qui s’adresse cette permission;
 

(b) may not be referred to in any way; and
   

b) ne doit pas être mentionnée, de quelque façon que ce soit;
 

(c) is given on the basis that no statement implying endorsement on behalf of the Crown will be included in what is said or done.
   

c) est accordée sous réserve qu’aucune déclaration donnant à entendre qu’il y a eu approbation au nom de l’État ne sera incluse dans ce qui est dit ou fait.

(M)
 

(M)

19.375 – COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES
 

19.375 – COMMUNICATIONS À DES AGENCES DE NOUVELLES

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.
 

(1) Sous réserve des alinéas (2) et (3), toute communication touchant ou intéressant les Forces canadiennes ou une partie de celles-ci qu’il pourrait être jugé souhaitable de faire à la presse ou à d’autres organes de diffusion de nouvelles ou d’opinions doit émaner du ministre ou d’un officier ou fonctionnaire désigné par le ministre.

(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer’s command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.
 

(2) Un officier commandant un commandement, une formation, une base, une unité ou un élément peut transmettre des communications à la presse ou à d’autres agences de nouvelles lorsqu’elles ne touchent ou n’intéressent que le commandement, la formation, la base, l’unité ou l’élément sous son commandement, et ne comportent pas d’énoncé, de défense ou de critique, exprimés ou sous-entendus, de la politique des Forces canadiennes, du ministère ou du gouvernement.

(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer’s discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer’s command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.

Regards
 

calgarytanks

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Crantor said:
Why not look into why so many people are pissed off?  We are not a bunch of maniac anti-press lunatics.  But we are a tight knit community that grieves whe one of our own is killed. 

i have to agree with your plea to th e media to "check this out"; well-done. But "we" are not necessarily tight knit, as that implies *we* are some way a small minority. There are wide gulfs on ocasion between regulars & reserves, infantry & armoured, etc. (except when it counts - on the battlefield) and as for grief, few in western Canada had the honor of serving or even meeting the cpl. Boneca. we don't act hostile to bad press reports because we are grief stricken or some small club rallying around a comrade. we object most strongly because it is plain wrong to quote a shattered little girl in *her* moment of grief as if it is - forgive me - of national importance. it isn't.  let the families and friends have their private moments of reflection, let the nation know that a soldier died doing his duty, let his family express remorse or pride - and if there are doubts, then air them as a sober second thought, perhaps after the honoured fallen have at least been buried. in short - at least find out if there is some system failure before plastering headlines with accusations by an immature and emotionally devastated little girl saying that there is. once you start to say something in the press, unfortunately people may start to believe it - our soldiers included
 

Fusaki

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
SetBax,

Have you ever had a rough day at work? Gone home and vented to your husband or wife? Don't try and tell me you've never had any complaints. Everyone bitches. Now take that private conversation and put it on national TV. Those are your words, there's no denying that. But is it an accurate representation of how you feel about your job? Of course not, because it's totally out of context. There's no reporting of all the other days when you go home with the satisfaction of a job well done. No one takes into consideration to the fact that you were just trying to blow off steam. All the media knows is that they just want the juiciest bits of info that have the most controversy and will sell the best on newstands.

And so the media has sacrificed the integrity of what is normally a stand-up organization in order to make a quick buck, at your expense.

Do you think this is what Cpl Boneca would have wanted? A professional soldier killed on his second tour to Afghanistan? Is your paycheck worth it?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Mortar guy said:
I think it's plain for all to see what the problem is and I don't think all journalists are to blame. You get people like Christie Blatchford, Matthew Fisher and Graeme Smith who actually have the parts to travel to Kandahar and see for themselves what is happening. They are almost unanimously in support of what we are doing over here and the usually provide excellent insights into the lives of our troops. What's more, all of the reporters over here seem to be emphatically refuting claims that morale is low or that troops are being "misled".

On the other side of the coin we seem to have a herd of journalists (mostly from the Star) like Haroon Siddiqui, Linda McQuaig et al who seem to be recurring targets of Ruxted Editorials. These people are either too scared or too complacent to actually travel to Kandahar to learn something about that which they write. Yet these same people offer opinions and write stories by the boatload with a "damn the torpedoes" approach to facts.

If there is to be a positive outcome to this entire shameful episode it is the media might pay more attention to the details, even if by accident. Anyone who actually follows up on the suggestion that soldiers are "misled" or "unprepared" for the mission will get a very sudden and rude reality check. Now I suspect that there will be very little follow up by the worst offenders of sensationalizing. The sort of Editorial staff which puts up the "He was 'misled'" : http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/07/11/1678530-sun.html headline in abnormally large type above the fold and highlighted with a "box" is hardly likely to dispatch a reporter to follow up and find out if any of this is true or not.

On the other hand, there are a small stable of really dedicated reporters, and the "second team" of the Blogosphere is gaining readership and credibility in leaps and bounds through the ability to rapidly fact check and publish. Old media may still have more impact for now, but the constant self inflicted erosion of their credibility will kill them in the end.
 

beenthere

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
I'm doubtful if any change will come. They follow each new thing that pops up and pay little attention to past events which means that what happened three days ago is history rather than news.
From my experience there are lots of errors in reporting any event. I've been involved in a number of situations over the years where the news story that described the event had a vast difference in detail from what actually happened. Articles are put together so quickly and with such sketchy details that the story that is published sometimes has little similarity to the actual event. Reporters are prone to taking anyone's words at face value and using them for material.
Media people who become quite involved in military  matters and spend time with the military have more insight and report differently than their counterparts who don't get involved. Sometimes we forget that our world is a whole lot different than that of civilians and expect others to see us in the same light as we do. The average person would get lost listening to us in a conversation because we use so many acronyms and terms that we have a language of our own. The same goes for our relationships with each other where we bounce all over the world together and apart from each other sharing postings, courses and deployments as room/tent mates and then have periods of years where we never have contact but can get together years later and start all over again. People who have never lived this sort of life are baffled at the way we live and don't understand it. The average media person takes what they see and hear and put it into print and if they are told that someone has referred to someplace as Hell they will look  at that statement as being very strong. One of us could refer to a three year posting in Gagetown as Hell and to us it could mean too much time in the training area where as to someone unfamiliar with military life listening to the conversation it could come across as being three years of absolute endless agony.
It doesn't take much for media person who hasn't lived even a few days with us to get the details wrong or to misunderstand a statement.



 

392

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
SetBax said:
Thanks for the advice, bud.
You should be embarassed for shutting that guy out of the discussion. Our whole purpose for being over there in the first place is to protect free speech, to protect a free press - which includes settings like this forum. Seems you lot are only interested in hearing people that agree with you.

Ummmmmm.....bud......I think you have that backwards.......it's guys / girls past and present like me and the rest the CF members on this board who continuously go / have gone to these far flung places in the world to ensure YOU have the right to practise free speech and opinions, not the other way around.
 

cplcaldwell

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
I have lurked this thread for the last couple of days and I think now I should talk.

Let's leave Mr DeCorte out of it. He seems like and honest bloke who was asked an honest question. That his answer was not spot on with our particular brand of 'code of honour' so what? To us he may seems to be spouting off , but let's take it from whence it comes, I doubt he ever attended a PAffO's briefing.

And let's leave the press out of it. This is what they do. I'll bet the reporter was sent to T'Bay to get a story. I'll bet he got a lot of polite "No Comments" and a few "$#%^ Off" 's. But the Press's job is to report the news, the minute they start to worry about whether it offends one group of society or another is the minute they start down the slope to Pravda. The only thing that matters in this case is respect of Cpl Boneca's life and work and repsect of the family's wishes. I didn't read anywhere that Cpl Boneca was a bag of hammers, I read he was a fine young guy who had some misgvings, but he soldiered on.

Now I'll give you a little perspective.

It will be three years in September since my 18 year old son and his 17 year old girlfriend where killed in a car accident near Peterborough Ontario. They were good kids, they went for a drive. The road was wet and he lost control of the car and were instantly killed. I have lived this. Sadly so to have some of you. The officer at the door. The wake, (the open casket) and yes, the press at the door the next morning asking me for a comment. The front page story in the Examiner and the Era showing my little Mazda pounded to shit. The report on cbc. And yes I sent the reporters packing with a box of vitriole even the nastiet MCpl couldn't manage. But reporting the facts is what these people do, they can't in most instances parse out the truth. Sound shitty? it's tough on everyone.

Now in case you think I am defending the press, send me a message and I tell you a little more, but we have to recognise that this is what they do. It may seem distateful and disrespectful, but then again, if taken to the n'th degree we are still in the property destruction and personal injury business, our motives are the most noble in the world, but we're not social workers. Taken to the n'th degree they are in the news business and when a fine young man dies, its news,  their motives are the most noble in the world, but they're not advertisng copy writers.

Press on.
 
Top