John Monaghan, a former temporary worker at Environment Canada, was arrested in his workplace Wednesday and led away in handcuffs while his co-workers looked on. Police alleged he had committed a breach of trust under the Criminal Code. He was released from custody a short time later.
Federal Environment Minister John Baird stated plainly that the arrest was meant to be a signal to other government employees that leaks of information will not be tolerated.
Well-meaning, conscientious whistleblowers, it would seem, are not welcome in our federal bureaucracy...
Conscientious? Well-meaning?? Pull-eeze!!!!
The writer not only gets the facts wrong with the reference to "John" Monaghan, instead of Jeffrey (sheesh!), but also glorifies his actions with the label "whistleblower".
The Record isn't the first to do this, but whistleblower conveys an almost martyr-like quality of integrity. It implies courage and risk to self in the face of obvious evil and corruption. Allan Cutler was such a whistleblower.
Jeffrey Monaghan allegedly violated the terms of his security clearance by leaking details of a secret government draft regarding proposed environmental legislation which he did not personally agree with.
"The complaint about the leak came from the department's deputy minister, Michael Horgan, said (Environment Canada spokeswoman Lynn) Brunette."
The information contained in the document would have been made public in due course in any event. This was not a case of brown envelopes of cash being handed over in restaurants. There was no cover-up.
Wikipedia defines Whistleblower as:
"...an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action. Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest — fraud, health, safety violations, and corruption are just a few examples..."
Even with the most generous of interpretations, it would be difficult to see the alleged actions of Jeffrey Monaghan as being an example of the above. The Government doesn't expect to achieve Kyoto targets on time? That is the crime? Does the Record seriously believe that the Liberals would actually be able to reach those targets in time without disrupting the whole Canadian economy?
By calling Jeffery Monaghan an alleged "Whistleblower", the Record does a disservice to the real heroes like Allan Cutler.
This editorial isn't just biased - It is an appalling example of irresponsible, shoddy journalism.
* * * *
Update: Meanwhile, Steve Janke asks, Didn't Jeff Monaghan admit to being an anarchist?
More from Ezra Levant, H/T National Newswatch.
Tuesday Update: Or was the problem the result of using temps?
More from Ezra Levant, H/T National Newswatch.
Tuesday Update: Or was the problem the result of using temps?
43 comments:
HM Government has the right to function and be able to trust those in their employ. This si not whistle blowing, it is partisan politics.
Why would any employer now hire this guy?
Everybody loves whistleblowers so long as it is their whistleblower!
The handcuff thing might not have been so out of line either, when you consider the guy's background.
No doubt the RCMP was merely being cautious, as Mac had suggested in an earlier thread. Who knew what kind of whacko he would turn out to be, and what he would do when confronted?
"Security swoops down on prime minister's residence after man throws 'suspicious package' over gate" (Ottawa Citizen)
....someone should tell Jeffrey that they're holding his package at RCMP headquarters. :-)
raz
The problem with whistleblowing is who decides if it is "really" whistleblowing?
It is only decided after the fact, when a whistleblower can sue because they were wrongfully fired (for being a whistleblower). If they were wrong about whatever they blew the whistle on, they have to demonstrate a reasonable concern.
In this case, the main problem is the arrest and handcuffs routine. If he was so dangerous, why no emergency task force? Why not arrest him outside the office, at the entranceway of the building, or in the parking lot? Why not arrest him at his home? They have all the information they need to find him.
If safety was the concern, the last place to arrest him would be in his office, at his desk, during the work day, when nobody is on break or lunch. They would lure him to a more secure, less populated area. The usual method is to page him to visit HR because he has a visitor.
TangoJuliette sez:
The accused, or whoever, certainly has demonstrated incredible self-control.
Seems he was in the gov't employ for four years, prior to his arrest. That would mean that circumstance must have taken at least two and a half years to come to a raging boil, just watching while the Liberal Kyoto Plan ran this nation's environmental reputation way down deep into the crapper.
C'mon. 36% OF THE ABSOLUTELY WRONG kind of GHG Emission controls by the Liberals,for years -- and this melon-headed mutt remains silent? Now this dolt thinks that Harper, Ambrose, Baird et al, are already worse than that?? In just eighteen months?? My, those Conservatives sure can out-perform them Liberals, can't they.
He must have a way of seeing well into the future.I'd like to borrow his crystal ball for the next winning lotto numbers.
IMHO: He's abviously a liberal stooge. Anyone who can't see that, must have a dog called Kyoto messing up on their white shag carpet, and saying "Damn that Conservative cat down the street, cause it's gonna wreck the neighbours drapes...or something, even worse."
I still think that he's just a nasty piece of business, trying to promote what seems to be a rather a mediocre group of pseudo-musicians who seem top have to rely on tricks to compensate for their collective lack of talent, both, as musicians, and as anarchists.
Nor do I at all recall having voted to make this fool emperor, not even for twenty minutes. And...he still sounds to me, very much like tha arrogant and pompous clown who'd try to gum up your site, some many moons ago.
And how about the Masked Marvel, Captain Thief-O, Mark Holland and his delightful wee sidekick, the stunningly beautiful, Little Princess Jennings? What's the verdict on this latest duo installment of the Liberal Entitlement Circus of "Contempt of Parliament" Flying circus Chowderheads?
Old Codgers want to know.
From the G&M link:
"On April 17, reporter Dennis Bueckert of The Canadian Press wrote about the leaked climate change plan, quoting from the federal draft, marked Secret and dated April 13."
That the document was stamped 'Secret' was also stated by reporter Paul Hunter on Newman's Politics. That tells the whole story. Monaghan was clearly in breach of trust.
Furthermore, the definition of a draft, which is what Monaghan leaked, is: "Any of various stages in the development of a plan, document, or picture: a preliminary draft of a report; the final draft of a paper."
The information included in the draft was not yet final, but it was slated for eventual release, after revisions & modifications. As noted by someone (? don't recall) on Newman's Politics, this document was not The Pentagon Papers!
I guess Monaghan preferred to focus on this other definition of the word 'draft:'
"a first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision, **copying**"
Or maybe he thought 'draft' meant he was going to be forcibly enrolled in the armed forces ...
It is quite clear that journalists live in their own private world on a subject such as this. They see leakers as good people because it is good for the news business. The more leakers the better it is for newspapers. Inside info sells!
As an indicator of how far off this veiw is from reality, look at the recent G&M poll question: Is it acceptable for a bureaucrat or employee to leak sensitive internal documents? The result is an overwhelming 78% for "Never".
How far are the left and their MSM supporters willing to take this argument?
Take our role in Afghanistan as an extreme example? Their are plenty of people who disagree with what we are doing in Afghanistan, so can they now go out and leak secret military information/plans to the Taliban because it is a "matter of conscience"?
The law is there for a reason; if some have problems with it they can take the matter up before a judge or try to get the law changed through the politicians. If everyone ignored laws because they didn't like them we would have nothing but anarchy; which coincidently is what Monaghan seems to be all about.
Al
They see leakers as good people because it is good for the news business. The more leakers the better it is for newspapers. Inside info sells!
Exactly. They're sure not going to bite the hand that feeds them!!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record about this, how did young Jeffrey get his hands on a confidential document in the first place? Is security so lax in Baird's department that this was an easy task for him?
Red, that is an excellent question. I would love to know the answer to that one as well.
TangoJuliette sez:
Totalitarian/Police State? Slack, lackadaisical and slip-shop on security weaklings?
Good question TR. A better one might be, are the Harper conservatives lax on security? Or are they exercising over-kill on security? But, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY ACTUALLY NAILED SOME YUTZ, didn't they? So just how laz can they really be, huh, huh??
I guess the tough question for the liberally-inclined is a doozer.
Can you guys decide which side of the sword you want to slice with?
Just like some op-ed clown in the KW Record today. Six months ago he was hammering away at Harper's "Five Priorities" as being useless, vapid and vacuous nothingness.
TODAY he's yammering away about Harper NOT having an agenda, not having something as good as the previous Five Priorities. Mebbe PMSH ought steal Dion's treepeelers for the next Fall Session, eh?
My old granny, with her heavily-garlicked breath, and her thick Smallgarian-accented English, was so fond of speculating about flip-flopping people like this: "Dey soch stoopids, dey don' know if their butt-holes have been punched, bored, drilled, dy-no-mited or kicked open.
In many cases none of these choices were adequate for the task at hand. Hence, the 'back-up' of waste. Hence, the horrific volume of subsequent doo-doo, often delivered, unfortunately, in speech and in ink. But that's Liberalism for you, boychik."
Thanks nana.
So Red. Has yours been punched, drilled, dynomited or are you still backing up with the waste, baby? But, the answer to that one is readily obvious, isn't it?
tj
Just like some op-ed clown in the KW Record today. Six months ago he was hammering away at Harper's "Five Priorities" as being useless, vapid and vacuous nothingness.
TODAY he's yammering away about Harper NOT having an agenda, not having something as good as the previous Five Priorities. Mebbe PMSH ought steal Dion's treepeelers for the next Fall Session, eh?
Tango, I guess you're referring to the "insight" column by Geoffrey Stevens? I try very hard not to read his stuff. It makes me physically ill.
Joanne,
FYI - I thought 'The Record' might appreciate your post. So I sent them a note recommending they read it.
Cheers.
TangoJuliette sez:
get some anti-nausea tablets. They take the queaasiness away, and make it easier to read the "Prof." in his true "voice." And that's truly a hoot. The man was a biggie with the Globe, dontcha know. Now he "teaches" university students. Woe, O Canada.
All he really is, is a whining, whitewashing shill for the thieves and the quislings. And the whole lot of them are worried sick. Probably sicker than Geoff makes you.
I think they're all just waiting for the "second shoe to drop." Adscam was nothing compared to what I believe will be coming to light as a prelude to the next election.
Dalton McEthnic is just part of the malaise.
"Tax and spend Liberalism?"
They tax the masses, spend it on their friends an cliques to buy the vote, to keep themselves in power to keep the "Wheeeel of Fortune" spinning -- in their favour, of course.
t'anks, fer nuttin' folks,
Thanks, JR. Should be interesting to see if they respond.
liberal supporter, your comments regarding the use of handcuffs for Monaghan's arrest show either a profound ignorance of the common sense approach of police procedures regarding arrests or a blind willingness to put partisan nastiness before all. I'm going to hope it's the former, not the latter.
Did police assume Monaghan was extremely dangerous? No. If they had evidence to suggest such was the case, an emergency response team would be appropriate... but nothing we've seen so far suggests this was the case. If such tactics had been employed, I would be part of the chorus who were proclaiming the action was overkill to the extreme.
Can they assume Monaghan is NOT dangerous? No. It would be imprudent and unsafe to do so. Failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety and the safety of Monaghan and others in the office would open them to criticism. Handcuffs are a minimally intrusive but reasonably effective means of precaution.
Your suggestion of luring Monaghan or arresting him at his home would work well in a fiction novel but reality isn't quite so easy. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?
An office is a reasonably safe location; certainly much safer than a home where the arrestee has intimate knowledge of his surroundings and access to a variety of weapons from simple kitchen knives to... whatever! Tactically, it's a really really BAD idea... plus there would be the necessity for a "Feenie" warrant and who needs that paperwork?
An office, especially a government office, is normally a reasonably controlled environment. Chances are this is the first time the arresting officer had met Monaghan face to face (identity being rather important for an arrest) and there is nothing to suggest his arrest was done in a provocative manner.
Quite the opposite, in fact, for if there was any sign whatsoever that police had drawn attention to themselves or Monaghan, it would have been trumpeted by the MSM. As it is, they're complaining about such a commonplace occurrence as handcuffing.
Perhaps handcuffing isn't commonplace in your life (I hope such is the case) but for those of us who police, it's what we do when we arrest people. If you don't like that, don't get arrested.
The Canada Labour Code safety regulations make it very clear that police are supposed to use the safety equipment which is issued to them by their employer to make themselves as safe as possible. Choosing to ignore such basic safety procedures as handcuffing an arrestee exposes police to criticism and personal civil liability. The employer would be under no obligation to defend the employee who makes such an unsafe choice.
-----------------------------
RT, your question is valid but ignores the nature of bureaucracy.
In order to work at that office, by all accounts, Monaghan passed some level of a security clearance. There are various levels of security clearance, even as there are various levels of security requirements for documents.
Since the document in question was released shortly after Monaghan's leak, I would suggest it was never a top level security document. As such, whatever his level of security clearance, the document was likely accessible to Monaghan. Whether he had permission, just cause or any reason whatsoever to be reading those documents is another question altogether.
Besides, the "secret document" schtick is more likely MSM hacks trying to paint the Conservatives as being secretive.
It's not like Monaghan was just Joe Q Public who walked in off the street through a sidedoor left propped open, entered an unlocked office, rifled through an unsecured filing cabinet in a safe which was left ajar and stole the documents. That would be lax security.
How do you propose to protect documents from someone who has security access short of locking away access to all of the files and creating a new layer of bureaucracy to control access... and then how do you propose to protect the files from those who control access?
Things move slowly enough in this bureaucracy. Making access more onerous would likely cause immobility.
Regardless, Monaghan's actions were wrong and his subsequent media circus showed his partisan agenda. This is not a case of a whistle-blower by any stretch of the imagination... but that won't prevent our friends in the media from trying to create that illusion. It makes for a better headline that way.
Mac - That was a jaw-droppingly awesome comment! Thanks.
Also delivered with a great level of credibility given your background.
Thanks, Jo. This whole Monaghan episode rubs me raw and while I can't speak to the exact situation, I can frame what information that is available to us within the context of my experience(s).
Since the Conservatives were elected, I said Harper faced an uphill battle between the Opposition, the stacked Senate, the stacked Judiciary and the supposedly non-partisan civil service. For RT's benefit, I should add the MSM to the list as well, I suppose.
It's highly unlikely Monaghan is the only recreant; he's just the first one to get caught.
You have a subscription?
Fair enough, mac. The home was a bad example, but calling him down to HR or the lobby is a possibility. Now that usually happens when they simply want to question you and they were not summoned by the employer, but I was under the impression you would not typically handcuff somebody unless you apprehended them during or right after a crime. Not because someone called the police claiming the employee has leaked a document sometime in the past. Would there not be some investigation before the arrest? Since the crime is in the past, he's hardly a flight risk. And if a confrontation could cause problems, I still think getting him out of the office would be a prudent move.
How often does someone get arrested (i.e. handcuffed etc) but is released and not charged? How often does someone get questioned without being arrested (or handcuffed) and without being charged?
You have a subscription?
Yeah, I pay them good money to have my blood pressure raised. Silly me.
Calling someone down to HR is a bit too "high school" for me. We're talking about real life here. Such melodramatic ploys aren't necessary or productive.
The power to arrest without warrant is articulated and restricted to specific conditions under Section 495(s) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Those conditions are:
to collect or prevent loss of evidence,
to establish identity of the accused,
to prevent re-occurrence of the offence, and/or to ensure court appearance.
It is not unusual for someone to be arrested (usually to establish identity) and released without charges. It is normal to release someone who has been released as soon as it is practicable to do so although the Criminal Code does allow police to hold an arrestee for up to 24 hours without charge.
It is not unusual to question someone without arresting them. If the person being questioned is or becomes a suspect, the police must caution that person of their Rights under the Charter or any evidence which is forthcoming might be excluded at court.
It is not unusual to arrest someone and release them without charges but to file charges later once the investigation is completed. This is because once someone is charged, it is necessary to start the disclosure of evidence process.
If you charge prematurely, disclosure of evidence can interfere with an ongoing investigation. That's a bad idea.
As far as arresting someone and not using handcuffs, that was fairly common practice in the past but since the RCMP came under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code a few years ago, such unsafe practices lessened dramatically. In many way, the unionized municipal police agencies were ahead of the RCMP in this regard. Their union made it clear to their members that unsafe labour practices wouldn't be tolerated.
Does that help at all, ls?
Yes, thanks mac. I don't know how they should do it, but the word should get out that police procedure is now much more towards handcuffs, regardless of any perceived potential threat.
In this case, it doesn't seem it is being put forth that this is standard procedure. I certainly didn't know this.
So in this case, one could expect charges later. More likely, they'll simply fire him. Probably the possibility of charges will make him go away a little more quietly.
Probably the possibility of charges will make him go away a little more quietly.
One can only hope, LS.
By the way, mac, great comments. LS raised some very good questions, some of which I had, and you answered them very nicely. Your responses are articulate, well-reasoned, and maturely given.
Yes, I agree with Brian - Great comments, Mac. You and Liberal Supporter have really added a lot to this thread; with the Q & A.
The whole thing makes the Record's editorial look even more off-base regarding their overreaction about the handcuffs.
Okay, so it was a huge breach of security close to being on the same level as a budget leak according to Ezra Levant, but at the same time, it was probably not really that secret or all that sensitive and/or the secret angle is being manufactured by the nefarious MSM to make the government look bad. Got it. Perfectly logical.
Hey, Joanne, where’s all that sanctimonious talk about “respect” or is it considered perfectly acceptable for your crack-addled buddy to ask whether my asshole has been punched, drilled, dynamited or none of the above, in which case, I’m still full of shit.
Not that I really care, but the double-standard is pretty funny.
Glad I could be of assistance.
I'm not sure how one would go about advertizing the police are now more likely to use their handcuffs than before. Imagine the editor when a reporter comes in with that press release and says...
"Hey, Jimmy... The Mounties want us to announce they're going to be using their handcuffs when they arrest anyone. What do you make of that?"
I'm sure the story that followed would be sensational, to say the least.
Handcuffing was always standard procedure but Mounties used to exercise discretion more often. Things have changed in Canada... not necessarily for the better but, in some cases, very much for the better.
For many years, the RCMP was not subject to the Canada Labour Code (CLC) which standardizes health & Safety regulations for most federal employees. The reason was the RCMP Act supposedly had standards which met or exceeded the CLC. The problem was... no-one complied with those standards and most employees and managers never knew they existed!
As a result of an unfortunate accident which claimed the life of an RCMP member, his widow successfully sued the RCMP all the way to the Supreme Court which revoked the RCMP's exemption to the CLC. Suddenly, RCMP management were faced with the possibility of being held civilly and/or criminally responsible for the safety of their subordinates.
Bringing the RCMP up to CLC standards has been a long and difficult process since it meant changing the mindset both of the part of the managers and the employees from "get the job done" to "get the job done safely" and that difference is remarkable.
Back on subject, there was a time when Mounties exercised discretion in who they handcuffed. After all, if someone who had been arrested subsequently broke away from police and ran into traffic or attacked someone, it wasn't the police's fault, right? WRONG!
The Courts are now holding the police responsible for the actions of anyone taken into custody... or, in some cases, even those who haven't yet been taken into custody. It's much easier to blame the police than to acknowledge the responsibility of the criminal.
Since police officers are being held criminally and civilly responsible for the actions of others, they're much less likely to take a chance... so the handcuffs get used more often.
It's rather bittersweet. I'm glad safety standards are being improved and I've fought hard in my workplace to ensure those standards are adhered to but the lack of common sense and eagerness to assign blame to police on the part of the Courts doesn't fill me with delight.
I knew I could count on you, RT. Bravo.
I'm not sure what your second paragraph is all about but that's probably for the best. Given your usual modus operandi, you should be careful with your accusation of being sanctimonious. For some reason, I'm reminded of an expression regarding a pot calling a kettle names.
Mac — Joanne knows what I mean. ;)
Tango, please stop speculating about Red Tory's butt. It's dragging down the quality of the discussion.
Thanks. ;)
Not that I really care, but the double-standard is pretty funny.
BTW, Red. I rarely (never) see you jumping to my defense when Ti-Guy lets loose at your place. Talk about double standards...
Joanne — LOL. Guilty as charged. I don't because I think it's silly. Like I said, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, it just made me chuckle, that's all.
Guilty as charged.
Hah! Well, at least you're honest.
I actually think that you and I have been disgustingly civil with each other lately.
Tango Juliette sez:
Dear red tory:
Soo-o-o-o o o sorry. having read much of your writing, I mistakenly failed to realize that you were such a sensitive and squeamish wee soul. Please don't sue me.
Now, from where I sit: no I am not on crack. Strongest stuff I ingest has to do with high doses of vitamins. My state of mind-addledness shall have to be attributed to other causes.
Most importantly, however, I apologize for my remarks. No conditions on the apology. Not a case of Justinian or Maysian equivocation here, no "IF I offended...and/or... IF you misunderstood... I would like to do so and such...."
Straight up -- my sincerest apologies to Red Tory, for what I wrote.
I also apologize to Joanne, for lowering the tone of the discourse on her site.
As well, a mea culpa on behalf of my late, great and ulitmately very wise and garlicky Smallgerian Granny, whose old country wisdoms I was quoting.
Her references, also quoted, had far less to do with physical human orifices and bodily waste disposal, than it did with her perceptions of what she considered to be serious lack of mental agility and alacrity on the parts of some people.
Along the lines of one "not knowing his(her) a**e from a hole in the ground," and the subsequent infantile blatherings which said suspected ignorance might engender.
Also, therefore, I do apologize for trying to be too clever by half, when all I really should have said was something along the lines of " I disagree. I think that your position (statement) on the issue under discussion is:tripe, weak, infantile, childish, not well thought through, somewhat of a flip-flop. (choose one or all of the preceeding as deemed appropriate. Please also feel at liberty to add whatever might prove to be appropriate and clarifying enhancements and additions.)
So, at this point, I should like to go on the record with my last comment which starts: "I disagree. I think that your position (statement) on the issue under discussion is:tripe, weak, infantile,...etc. etc. etc."
How's that for balm for a senstive soul, dear hearts?
ciao!
tj
Tango Juliette sez:
Dear red tory:
Soo-o-o-o o o sorry. having read much of your writing, I mistakenly failed to realize that you were such a sensitive and squeamish wee soul. Please don't sue me.
Now, from where I sit: no I am not on crack. Strongest stuff I ingest has to do with high doses of vitamins. My state of mind-addledness shall have to be attributed to other causes.
Most importantly, however, I apologize for my remarks. No conditions on the apology. Not a case of Justinian or Maysian equivocation here, no "IF I offended...and/or... IF you misunderstood... I would like to do so and such...."
Straight up -- my sincerest apologies to Red Tory, for what I wrote.
I also apologize to Joanne, for lowering the tone of the discourse on her site.
As well, a mea culpa on behalf of my late, great and ulitmately very wise and garlicky Smallgerian Granny, whose old country wisdoms I was quoting.
Her references, also quoted, had far less to do with physical human orifices and bodily waste disposal, than it did with her perceptions of what she considered to be serious lack of mental agility and alacrity on the parts of some people.
Along the lines of one "not knowing his(her) a**e from a hole in the ground," and the subsequent infantile blatherings which said suspected ignorance might engender.
Also, therefore, I do apologize for trying to be too clever by half, when all I really should have said was something along the lines of " I disagree. I think that your position (statement) on the issue under discussion is:tripe, weak, infantile, childish, not well thought through, somewhat of a flip-flop. (choose one or all of the preceeding as deemed appropriate. Please also feel at liberty to add whatever might prove to be appropriate and clarifying enhancements and additions.)
So, at this point, I should like to go on the record with my last comment which starts: "I disagree. I think that your position (statement) on the issue under discussion is:tripe, weak, infantile,...etc. etc. etc."
How's that for balm for a senstive soul, dear hearts?
ciao!
tj
TangoJuliette sez:
sorry too, for that last double click. The nerves are certainly twitching today.
As for Granny? She was a Demon Poker-ist. She had every player's "tell" down pat in the first few hands.
She was notorious for "calling 'em as she sees 'em!"
And, rest her dear sweet soul,she was proficient at this skill, not just at the gaming tables, but in her everyday life as well.
She worked hard to teach me "to call 'em as I see 'em." I just have to learn how to do it without offense.
I AM working on it. Honest.
I must admit to bridling at the sight of egregious flip-flops leading to thinly veiled innuendoes of incompetence and malfeasance.
Though, come to think of it, one shouldn't be expecting all that much from the Liberals and their camp-followers.
Ciao,
tj
Straight up -- my sincerest apologies to Red Tory, for what I wrote.
I also apologize to Joanne, for lowering the tone of the discourse on her site.
Hey Tango and Mac, Red and I were just kidding around, honest!
But we'll all just let bygones be bygones now.
Group hug everyone!! Aww... That's better.
Group hug everyone!! Aww... That's better.
Thanks, Jo. I hope that was your hand that goosed me, not RT or TJ...
Thanks, Jo. I hope that was your hand that goosed me, not RT or TJ...
lol!!!
TangoJuliette sez:
Dear Mac: ref. your "...Thanks, Jo. I hope that was your hand that goosed me, not RT or TJ..."
I speak only for myself.
If it WAS me, let's pray that you were standing to the right of me, for the left hand, long lost in a whaling misadventure, has been replaced with a rather large and unpleasant hook of an affair, with it's own built-in cooling system. If that was you on my left, and if I HAD given you the
trudeau salute, you would undoubtedly be reminded of some of your most memorable moments at the Proctologists Offices.
Appropos all that, I'd probbly be inclined to put a fiver on the groper being RT. I say that, just based on the sad way he seems to be "grasping" at almost anything he can get his hands on, when he can't come up with a decent retort to anything, as seems to be happening with alarming regularity on most blogsites where he can be seen whinning away in the corner.
ciao!
tj
One of the guys at the office has a small poster which says:
Harassment will not be reported. It may, however, be rated.
Post a Comment